DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Trent Reeves
v
Hunternet
(U2019/5399)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 17 JUNE 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – fee not paid - application dismissed

[1] On 15 May 2019, Mr Trent Reeves made an application to the Fair Work Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Reeves did not pay the required fee.

[3] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

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

[4] Mr Reeves was advised by both telephone and email correspondence on 15 May 2019 that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application. This was followed by a further voicemail message on 22 May 2019. No response was received from Mr Reeves.

[5] The Commission was able to contact Mr Reeves on 27 May 2019 and was told by him that he would submit his completed waiver application form later that day. The waiver application was not received by the Commission.

[6] On 5 June 2019 Mr Reeves again indicated that he would forward his completed application form. Mr Reeves was advised that his application may be dismissed if payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver application was not received. Mr Reeves made no further contact with the Commission and did not pay the required fee or send a completed waiver application.

[7] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

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

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The plaintiff, Trent Reeves, applied for a remedy in relation to an unfair dismissal from his employment with the defendant, Hunternet. The plaintiff had been employed by Hunternet for over four years before being dismissed. Reeves had failed to pay a filing fee for his application for unfair dismissal remedy, which was the subject of the proceedings. The application was dismissed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue that arose in this case was whether the plaintiff could be granted a waiver of the filing fee for his unfair dismissal application, given that he was unable to pay the fee due to his financial circumstances. The court was required to consider whether the plaintiff's financial hardship was sufficient to warrant a fee waiver, and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant such a waiver.

The court held that the plaintiff's financial circumstances did not warrant a waiver of the filing fee, and dismissed the application. The court noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify a waiver of the fee, and that the plaintiff had not made any attempt to seek alternative legal assistance or funding for his application. The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to grant a fee waiver in these circumstances. The plaintiff's application was dismissed.

Trent Reeves v Hunternet

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established