Tanja Pompey v Gidarjil Development Corporation

[2025] FWC 52

[2025] FWC 52

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tanja Pompey
v

Gidarjil Development Corporation

(U2024/12981)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 7 JANUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application fee – application is not made in accordance with this Act – application dismissed – s.587(1)(a).

1. On 29 October 2024, Ms Tanja Pompey made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

1. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Ms Pompey’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

1. Section 395 of the Act is in the following terms:

“395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.”

1. Ms Pompey’s application was incomplete because Ms Pompey did not pay the required fee.

1. Commission staff contacted Ms Pompey on the following dates:

·   5 November 2024 by SMS and email;

·   11 November 2024 by email;

·   12 November 2024 by SMS;

·   20 November 2024 by telephone; and

·   28 November 2024 by telephone.

1. Ms Pompey was advised that she must pay the filing fee if she wished to proceed with the application.  Ms Pompey was also warned that the application could be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid within 7 calendar days.

1. To date there has been no response from Ms Pompey and no fee paid.

1. Section 587 of the Act includes the following provisions:

“587    Dismissing applications

(1)   Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a)   the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b)   the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)   on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

1. Ms Pompey’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s 587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s 395) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 of the Act confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Pompey’s application.

1. Ms Pompey has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein). The Commission’s inquiries and warnings have largely been ignored, and Ms Pompey has not prosecuted her case.

1. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that Ms Pompey’s application should be dismissed.

1. I have separately made an order dismissing the application (PR783050).

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR783049>