Chirmal Singh [2025] FWC 2042 (16 July 2025)

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - Dismissal under s 536M of the Act - Applicant failed to attend hearing - Applicant failed to comply with Directions

• [1] This is an edited version of a decision delivered ex-tempore on Monday 14 July 2025.

• [2] This is a decision to dismiss the application for an unfair deactivation remedy made by Chirmal Singh on 18 May 2025 in relation a deactivation that he says occurred on 22 April 2025.

• [3] In his application, Mr Singh named the digital labour platform operator as Uber and did not provide an ACN or ABN. Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd responded to the application, asserting that it was the proper name of the party that operated the digital labour platform under which Mr Singh performed work, being the Uber Driver Platform. Under s 586(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), I order that the name of the respondent to this application be amended to Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (ABN: 27 622 365 833).

• [4] The Commission may dismiss a matter under section 536M of the Act, on application by a respondent, where an applicant has unreasonably failed to attend conferences or hearing, or comply with directions.

• [5] The Commission may also dismiss a matter under section 587(1) of the Act, on its own initiative or on application, if
  • The application is not made in accordance with the Act; or
  • The application is frivolous or vexatious; or
  • The application has no reasonable prospects of success

• [6] However, under s 587(2) of the Act, the Commission must not dismiss an application under s 536LU on the grounds that the application is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success.

• [7] Rasier Pacific (the respondent), made an application under s 536M of the Act on Friday 4 July 2025 in an email to the Commission. The email copied in Mr Singh. My chambers also informed Mr Singh of Raiser Pacific's application in emails on 7 and 10 July 2025.

• [8] Under s 586, I waive the requirement for the respondent to formally comply with the Commission's rules in making an application on a relevant form.

• [9] I am satisfied that Mr Singh has failed to attend hearings and comply with my directions.

• [10] Mr Singh has failed to attend today's hearing. Mr Singh was made aware of the date of this hearing because on 5 June 2025, my chambers sent Mr Singh a notice of listing. On 3, 7 and 10 July 2025, my chambers reminded Mr Singh of the date and time of the hearing.

At the time that today's hearing was scheduled to start, my chambers telephoned Mr Singh twice but he did not answer. We left a voicemail, but he has not returned that call.

• [11] My chambers used the email address and telephone number that Mr Singh had provided to the Commission on this application form

• [12] Mr Singh has failed to comply with directions that I issued on 5 June 2025, in that he did not file his materials by the deadline in those directions (which was 23 June 2025) nor at any later time. No materials have been filed with my chambers to date.

• [13] On 26 June 2025, my chambers emailed Mr Singh. My chambers reminded Mr Singh of the directions and provided him with a further opportunity to file materials and provide reasons for why he has not complied with directions. My chambers emailed Mr Singh again on 3, 7 and 10 July 2025.

• [14] To date, we have received no reply from Mr Singh.

• [15] I am satisfied that Mr Singh has unreasonably failed to comply with directions and failed to attend today's hearing, which was initially for the purposes of dealing with whether Mr Singh should have the time extended for the making of his application and was relisted to deal with the respondent's application for Mr Singh's application to be dismissed.

• [16] On multiple occasions, my chambers informed Mr Singh that he was required to comply with directions, required to attend today's hearing and required to provide reasons for his failure to comply. My chambers also informed Mr Singh that the respondent had made an application to dismiss his matter under s 536M of the Act.

• [17] Mr Singh has been provided with clear information about the consequences of non-compliance and non-attendance, and ample opportunity to give his reasons for why he has not complied, and why I should not dismiss his matter. Despite this, we have not heard from Mr Singh.

• [18] The power under s 536M is discretionary and I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion in this matter to dismiss the application.

• [19] I order that the application for an unfair deactivation remedy filed by Mr Chirmal Singh on 18 May 2025 be dismissed under s 536M of the Act.

Mr P Will of Dentons Australia Limited, with permission on behalf of the Respondent.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer