Addidas Te Hokowhitu-Wynne v Mineral Technologies Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 1227

[2025] FWC 1227

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Addidas Te Hokowhitu-Wynne
v

Mineral Technologies Pty Ltd

(C2025/1713)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON BRISBANE, 1 MAY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – s.587(3)(a) - application dismissed

1. This decision is about an application that was made by Mr Addidas Te Hokowhitu-Wynne (Te Hokowhitu-Wynne) pursuant to s.365 of the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (Act) against his former employer, Mineral Technologies Pty Ltd (the Respondent) filed on 4 March 2025 which Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne ultimately failed to prosecute.

Background

1. The matter was allocated to me on 25 March 2025 for determination of the Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objection. On 31 March 2025, I issued directions for the filing of material. The directions included both the date and time for the determinative conference/hearing and a requirement that the Applicant file material by no later than 4:00pm (AEST) on 14 April 2025. Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne failed to comply with this direction.

1. On 15 April 2025, my Chambers wrote to Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne reminding him he had not complied with the direction, seeking an explanation and giving him until no later than 4:00pm (AEST) on 16 April 2025 to comply and to explain his failure. Further, he was advised that if he failed to comply again, that the Commission would consider dismissing his application. Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne again failed to comply with this further direction.

1. On 29 April 2025, my Chambers wrote to the parties noting that Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne had again failed to comply with the directions and provided a final opportunity to Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne to make contact with my Chambers by 4:00pm (AEST) on 30 April 2025 and again advised him that if he failed to do so, his application may be dismissed without further notice to him. Again Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne failed to comply with this third direction.

Consideration

1. The Act provides the circumstances that an application may be dismissed.[1]

1. I note that Act does not limit the reasons when the Fair Work Commission (FWC) may dismiss an application.[2] In considering further whether Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne’s application should be dismissed on the initiative of the FWC,[3] I am satisfied that Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne has unreasonably and repeatedly failed to comply with directions to file his materials, provide evidence to support reasons why he has not filed his materials or to respond to communication from my Chambers.

Conclusion

1. For these reasons, I consider that it is appropriate to dismiss Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne’s application pursuant to s.587(3)(a) for want of prosecution. Pursuant to s.587(3)(a), Mr Te Hokowhitu-Wynne’s general protections application is dismissed. I order accordingly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] 587       Dismissing applications

(1)        Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a)        the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or
(b)        the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c)        the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

Note:     For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for general protections made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a)        is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b)        has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3)        The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)        on its own initiative; or

(b)on application.

[2] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.587(1).

[3] Ibid s.587(3)(a).

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR786944>