Mifsud v More Telecom Pty Ltd
Cited 1×
Applicant: Rachael Mifsud
Respondent: More Telecom Pty Ltd
Ratio
An application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 because it was not made in accordance with the Act, having not been accompanied by the required application fee prescribed by the regulations and no fee waiver form being submitted.
Outcome
Against applicant
dismissed_jurisdiction
Authority signal
Cited 1×
Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority,
green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data,
amber = caution, red = treated negatively.
Key facts · 6
- Ms Mifsud filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal on 31 October 2014
- The application was not accompanied by the required filing fee
- Ms Mifsud was advised by email on 3 November 2014 that the application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form
- The Commission attempted to contact Ms Mifsud on 21 November, 3 December and 22 December 2014 without success
- Further attempts to contact Ms Mifsud were made on 9 January and 12 January 2015 with voice messages left warning that failure to respond may lead to dismissal
- Ms Mifsud did not respond to communications or pay the fee
Legislation referenced
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.394
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.395
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.587(1)(a)
Concept tags · 4
Archived text (384 words)
Mifsud v More Telecom Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 650 (28 January 2015)
[2015] FWC 650
FAIR WORK COMMISSION
DECISION
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394
—Unfair dismissal
Rachael Mifsud
v
More Telecom Pty Ltd
(U2014/14761)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY
MELBOURNE, 28 JANUARY 2015
Application for relief from unfair dismissal.
[1]
On 31 October 2014, Ms Rachael Mifsud made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under
s.394
of the
Fair Work Act 2009
.
[2]
Ms Mifsud did not pay the required fee.
[3]
On 3 November 2014, Ms Mifsud was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed
waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.
[4]
Section 395
, 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
(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.
[5]
On 21 November, 3 December and 22 December 2014, the Commission unsuccessfully attempted to contact Ms Mifsud in relation to the correspondence
dated on 3 November 2014.
[6]
On 9 January and 12 January 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Mifsud again and a voice messages were left requesting she
contact the Commission urgently, as absence of a response may lead to the application being dismissed.
[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
(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.
[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 shortly.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A>