Alexander Holmes v Ipswich & West Moreton Clubhouse Association Incorporated

[2025] FWC 2727

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Alexander Holmes
v

Ipswich & West Moreton Clubhouse Association Incorporated

(U2025/9068)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 26 May 2025, Mr Alexander Holmes made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Holmes did not attend a telephone conciliation conference scheduled for 20 June 2025.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr Holmes on 20 June, 25 June and 30 July 2025 about whether he wants to continue his unfair dismissal claim. Mr Holmes has not responded to the Commission’s inquiries.

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings for want of prosecution. If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

I am satisfied that Mr Holmes has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Holmes’ application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Alexander Holmes on 26 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Alexander Holmes v Ipswich & West Moreton Clubhouse Association Incorporated, the Fair Work Commission was presented with an unfair dismissal application by Mr Alexander Holmes against his former employer. Mr Holmes alleged that his dismissal was unfair, contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was indeed unfair and, if so, what remedy should be granted.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Holmes' failure to engage with the Commission's attempts to progress his application constituted a want of prosecution, justifying the dismissal of his application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. This section empowers the Commission to dismiss an application for want of prosecution if the applicant's conduct or omissions indicate a lack of willingness to pursue their claim. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether Mr Holmes had a valid reason for not participating in the conciliation process or responding to the Commission’s inquiries.

Deputy President Easton reviewed the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr Holmes' non-participation in the proceedings. The Deputy President noted that Mr Holmes did not attend a scheduled telephone conciliation conference and had failed to respond to multiple communications from the Commission. Given the clear evidence of Mr Holmes' lack of engagement and communication, Deputy President Easton determined that his conduct demonstrated a clear unwillingness to pursue his application. Consequently, the Deputy President concluded that the application should be dismissed under section 587 for want of prosecution.

The final order of the Commission was to dismiss Mr Holmes' application for unfair dismissal. This decision underscores the importance of active participation in legal proceedings and the consequences of failing to engage with the Commission’s processes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established