Yahui Wang v Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Limited

[2025] FWC 1781

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Yahui Wang
v

Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Limited

(U2025/3960)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 24 JUNE 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).

On 31 March 2025, Ms Yahui Wang made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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

Ms Wang’s application was incomplete because she did not pay the required fee[1] or file a completed request to waive the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Wang on:
·     3 April 2025, by email;
·     4 April 2025, by SMS;
·     7 April 2025, by email;
·     10 April 2025, by phone call and voice mail.
On 5 June 2025, my Chambers emailed Ms Wang requiring a response by 12 June 2025. She was advised that if no response was received, her application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act. No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and no waiver request has been received.

Ms Wang has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. She has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that her application may be dismissed. I am satisfied that Ms Wang’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Yahui Wang on 31 March 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] Section 395 of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yahui Wang v Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Limited involved an unfair dismissal application made by Ms Yahui Wang against her employer, Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Limited, under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Wang filed her application on 31 March 2025, but did not pay the requisite application fee or file a completed request to waive the fee as required by section 395 of the Act. The Commission's staff made multiple attempts to contact Ms Wang, including emails, SMS, phone calls, and voicemails, to inform her of the deficiencies in her application and to give her the opportunity to rectify them. Despite these efforts, Ms Wang did not respond, leading to the dismissal of her application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act.

The primary legal issue the Fair Work Commission had to address was whether Ms Wang's application complied with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the application was complete, as it lacked the necessary fee payment or a valid waiver request. The Commission also considered whether Ms Wang had been provided with sufficient opportunities to address the deficiencies in her application. The Commission's reasoning was based on the procedural requirements set out in the Act and the multiple attempts made to contact Ms Wang to rectify the issues with her application.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission noted that Ms Wang had been given multiple opportunities to pay the application fee or to file a completed fee waiver request. Despite numerous attempts by the Commission's staff to contact her and warn her of the potential dismissal of her application, Ms Wang did not respond or take any action to rectify the deficiencies. The Commission concluded that Ms Wang's application was not made in accordance with the Act and that it was appropriate to dismiss her application under section 587(1)(a). The Commission's decision was based on the clear procedural requirements of the Act and the failure of Ms Wang to address the deficiencies in her application despite being given ample opportunity to do so.

The final order made by the Fair Work Commission was that the application for unfair dismissal made by Ms Yahui Wang on 31 March 2025 is dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 when making an application to the Commission. Failure to comply with these requirements, despite multiple opportunities to rectify deficiencies, can result in the dismissal of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established