s.536LU - Unfair deactivation

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - repeated failure to comply with a direction to file material - no response to various emails - application dismissed

• [1] Sajal Dahal was deactivated from the Uber Eats platform operated by Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Portier Pacific) on 6 June 2025 due to alleged fraudulent activity. Mr Dahal filed an application for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) on 26 June 2025.

• [2] I listed Mr Dahal's application for Mention/Directions on 1 August 2025 via video. Mr Dahal failed to attend the proceeding without explanation and could not be contacted.

• [3] After Pacific Portier had filed an application for Mr Dahal's application to be dismissed, Mr Dahal sent an email to the Commission on 13 August 2025 which provided an explanation for his failure to attend the Mention/Directions proceeding on 1 August 2025.

• [4] I listed a further Mention/Directions hearing for 18 August 2025 via video. Mr Dahal initially failed to attend the proceeding. Mr Dahal eventually responded to contact from my chambers and joined the proceeding. Portier Pacific did not press its dismissal application based on the explanation provided by Mr Dahal for not attending the proceeding on 1 August 2025.

• [5] Suitable dates for the filing of material were discussed and agreed during the Mention/Directions proceeding on 18 August 2025 and formal directions were issued later in the day on 18 August 2025. A hearing in relation to Portier Pacific's jurisdictional objections was listed for 23 October 2025 via video.

• [6] Portier Pacific complied with the direction to file material after being granted an extension of time. Portier Pacific filed evidence and submissions on 16 September 2025.

• [7] Mr Dahal did not file any material by the amended due date of 7 October 2025. Follow-up emails were sent from my chambers to Mr Dahal on 8 and 15 October 2025. Mr Dahal did not respond to the emails.

• [8] Portier Pacific made a further application for Mr Dahal's application to be dismissed pursuant to s.536M(1) of the FW Act on 17 October 2025. Portier Pacific relied on Mr Dahal's repeated failure to comply with the Commission's direction to file material in support of the application.

• [9] An email was sent to Mr Dahal at 9:11am on 20 October 2025 which provided Mr Dahal with an opportunity to respond to Portier Pacific's dismissal application by 5pm on 21 October 2025. Mr Dahal did not provide a response.

• [10] I am satisfied Mr Dahal has unreasonably failed to comply with the Commission's direction to file material in support of his application. Mr Dahal has been granted various additional opportunities to file material. Mr Dahal has not responded to any of the emails.

• [11] I would have proceeded to hold the hearing listed for 23 October 2025 if Mr Dahal had provided some sort of response to the various emails from chambers which indicated he wished to proceed with the application. I do not consider it is fair or appropriate to require Portier Pacific to expend further resources via attending the hearing on 23 October 2025 when Mr Dahal has failed to file material in support of his application without explanation and has repeatedly failed to respond to emails regarding his case.

• [12] Mr Dahal's application for an unfair deactivation remedy is dismissed pursuant to s.536M(1) of the FW Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer