Honglian Chen v Chemist Warehouse North Sydney Pty Ltd
Deputy President Easton
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Honglian Chen
Respondent: Chemist Warehouse North Sydney Pty Ltd
Ratio
The application was dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act because the prescribed application fee under s.373 had not been paid or waived, the application was not made in accordance with the Act, and the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness and ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency.
Outcome
Against applicant
dismissed
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 · 4
- Application made on 13 August 2025
- Prescribed application fee not paid or waived
- Applicant had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency
- Applicant had ample opportunity to show cause why application should not be dismissed
Factors
For
Against
- Application fee not paid or waived
- Application not made in accordance with the Act
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 · 4
Principles · 2
articulates para 2
An application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act that is made without the prescribed fee being paid or waived is not made in accordance with the Act and may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) without a hearing, provided the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.
cites para 3
An applicant should be afforded ample opportunity to rectify deficiencies in an application and to show cause why the application should not be dismissed under s.587.
Cases cited in this decision · 1
Cited
[2024] FWC 1302
— Alan Geoffrey Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge
"…procedural fairness. [3] Ms Chen has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and also ample opportunity to show why her application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond v...…"
Archived text (232 words)
1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.372—General protections Honglian Chen v Chemist Warehouse North Sydney Pty Ltd (C2025/8039) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 24 OCTOBER 2025 Application to deal with other contraventions dispute – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed. [1] On 13 August 2025 Ms Honglian Chen made a general protections application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). [2] Ms Chen’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. Section 587(1)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss Ms Chen’s application without conducting a hearing, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness. [3] Ms Chen has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and also 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 Chen’s general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order: A. The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Honglian Chen on 13 August 2025 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR793013> [2025] FWC 3208 DECISION AND ORDER