Application by Leanne Matalone
Deputy President Easton
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Leanne Matalone
Ratio
Ms Matalone's general protections application under s.372 was dismissed under s.587(1)(a) because it was not made in accordance with the Act: the prescribed application fee was not paid or waived, and the Form F8C was incomplete. The applicant was afforded procedural fairness through ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies.
Outcome
Against applicant
dismissed_jurisdiction
Authority signal
Not yet cited by other cases
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 · 5
- Application made 30 April 2025
- Prescribed application fee not paid or waived
- Form F8C was incomplete
- Applicant given ample opportunity to rectify deficiencies
- Applicant given ample opportunity to show cause against dismissal
Factors
For
Against
- Non-payment of prescribed application fee
- Incomplete Form F8C
Legislation referenced
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.372
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.373
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.587(1)(a)
Concept tags · 2
Principles · 2
articulates para 2
An application under s.372 not made in accordance with the Act (including non-payment of the prescribed fee under s.373 or incompleteness of the application form) may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) provided the applicant is afforded procedural fairness.
cites para 3
Procedural fairness requirements and grounds for dismissal of applications under s.587(1)(a) for non-compliance with Act requirements.
Cases cited in this decision · 1
Cited
[2024] FWC 1302
— Alan Geoffrey Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge
"…s. [3] Ms Matalone has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also had ample opportunity to show why her application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond...…"
Archived text (242 words)
1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.372—General protections Application by Leanne Matalone (C2025/3494) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 10 JULY 2025 Application to deal with contraventions not involving dismissal – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed. [1] On 30 April 2025 Ms Leanne Matalone made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). [2] Ms Matalone’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.373) has not been paid or waived and the Form F8C was incomplete. Section 587(1)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss Ms Matalone’s application without conducting a hearing, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness. [3] Ms Matalone has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also had ample opportunity to show why her application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein). [4] I have decided to dismiss Ms Matalone’s general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order: 1. The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Leanne Matalone on 30 April 2025 is dismissed DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR789107> [2025] FWC 1981 DECISION AND ORDER