Akua Owusu-Agyeman v Abdulaziz Osman

Case [2022] FWC 1332


[2022] FWC 1332

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Akua Owusu-Agyeman
v

Abdulaziz Osman

(U2022/783)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 1 JUNE 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Akua Owusu-Agyeman was employed by Abdulaziz Osman from the 29th of September 2020 until they were dismissed on the 6th of January 2022.

  1. On the 16th of January 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The respondent objected to the application on the basis that Akua Owusu-Agyeman was never employed by the respondent and had named the incorrect employer.

  2. The legal business name nominated by the respondent in this matter was Love and Mercy FDC.

  3. On the 13th of May 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent and they were required to respond by the 20th of May 2022. No response was received from Akua Owusu-Agyeman in this time.

  4. On the 23rd of May 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing them to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 26th of May 2022. They were advised that in the absence of a reply their application may be dismissed.

  1. To date, Akua Owusu-Agyeman has not responded to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent or any further correspondence sent by my Chambers in writing.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides:

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.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), 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) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

  1. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR742075>

Details
AGLC
Akua Owusu-Agyeman v Abdulaziz Osman [2022] FWC 1332
Case
[2022] FWC 1332
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission presided over an application by Akua Owusu-Agyeman for a remedy for unfair dismissal against Abdulaziz Osman. The applicant alleged she was employed by the respondent from 29 September 2020 until dismissed on 6 January 2022. The respondent objected on the basis that Ms Owusu-Agyeman was not employed by him and had named the wrong employer, instead identifying the legal business name Love and Mercy FDC. The Commission was required to determine the validity of the application and whether it had reasonable prospects of success.

The key legal issue was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the application. The respondent argued that the application was made in error and was therefore frivolous or vexatious, or had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission considered section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 which allows for dismissal of an application on various grounds including if the application is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission also noted that dismissal for want of prosecution is permissible. Despite the respondent’s objections, the applicant failed to respond to correspondence regarding the jurisdictional issues. The Commission found that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Commission found that it had jurisdiction to dismiss the application under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The applicant’s failure to respond to the jurisdictional objections and correspondence from the Commission indicated the application had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission dismissed the application for want of prosecution. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.