1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Mr Richard Powell v Scentre Group Limited (U2025/18657) DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL ADELAIDE, 9 JULY 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – incomplete application – dismissal under ss.587(1)(a), (c) at the Commission’s initiative. [1] On 27 November 2025, Mr Richard Powell made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Mr Powell‘s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and does not have any reasonable prospects of success and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application. [2] Mr Powell stated in his application that he commenced employment with Scentre Group Limited on 13 July 2025 and that he was notified of his dismissal on 17 November 2025. [3] A person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Mr Powell, his period of employment was less than 6 months. [4] Further, the Form F2 filed by Mr Powell was incomplete in that the date that his dismissal took effect was not provided. Mr Powell had also not paid the required fee nor filed a completed request to waive the fee. [5] On 2 December 2025, Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Powell by email and telephone to advise he did not meet the minimum employment period and requested a response as to if he intended to continue his unfair dismissal application. On 2 June 2026, staff had also requested payment or a complete waiver request. The correspondence also advised, respectively, that since he did not meet the minimum employment period, and his application remained unpaid, Mr Powell‘s case would very likely be dismissed. [6] On 20 June 2026, my Chambers advised Mr Powell that that he did not meet the minimum employment period and his application remained unpaid. The correspondence also advised that if he did not contact the Commission by 29 June 2026, his application may be [2026] FWC 2602 DECISION [2026] FWC 2602 2 dismissed under ss.587(1)(a) and 587(1)(c) as it was not made in accordance with the Act and has no reasonable prospects of success. [7] Mr Powell has not responded to the Commission’s multiple attempts to contact him. Section 587 – General Principles [8] Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application. [9] The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law.1 An application should not be dismissed unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success and the power is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings. [10] Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success. Does Mr Powell‘s application have any reasonable prospects of success? [11] The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Mr Powell‘s application until it is clear that he is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim. [12] The information provided by Mr Powell indicates that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he was employed for less than 6 months. Further, Mr Powell has not filed a complete Form F2 nor paid the applicable fee or submitted a complete waiver form. [13] Mr Powell has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in his application and has not responded to the Commission’s multiple attempts to contact him, despite the multiple warnings that his application may be dismissed. [14] I am satisfied that Mr Powell‘s application should be dismissed as it has not been made in accordance with the Act nor has any reasonable prospects of success. 1 See generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16]. [2026] FWC 2602 3 [15] I order that the application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Richard Powell on 27 November 2025 (U2025/18657) is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811926>