Alida Martiena Engelbrecht v Ramsay Health

Case [2022] FWC 1275


[2022] FWC 1275

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Alida Martiena Engelbrecht
v

Ramsay Health

(U2022/4764)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 MAY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Alida Martiena Engelbrecht was employed by Ramsay Health from the 2nd of December 2019 until they were dismissed on the 17th of March 2022.

  1. On the 26th of April 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 application was lodged 20 days out of time.

  2. On the 13th of May 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and the applicant was required to respond by the 18th of May 2022.

  3. On the 19th of May 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing them to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 20th of May 2022. They were advised that in the absence of a reply their application may be dismissed.

  1. To date, Alida Martiena Engelbrecht has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.

  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

<PR741922>

Details
AGLC
Alida Martiena Engelbrecht v Ramsay Health [2022] FWC 1275
Case
[2022] FWC 1275
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alida Martiena Engelbrecht lodged an application for unfair dismissal against Ramsay Health with the Fair Work Commission. The application was made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was 20 days out of the requisite time. Despite being notified by the Commission on two occasions to respond to the matter of the application being out of time, Ms Engelbrecht did not respond. The Commission is empowered to dismiss an application for unfair dismissal for a number of reasons including where it is not made in accordance with the Act, or it is frivolous or vexatious, or it has no reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, the Commission may dismiss an application on its own initiative. In the circumstances of this case, the Vice President dismissed the application for want of prosecution.

The Vice President found that the application was out of time and that the applicant had failed to respond to two notices sent by the Commission requiring a response as to why the application should not be dismissed. The Vice President was therefore empowered to dismiss the application and did so for want of prosecution.

The Vice President considered the powers of the Commission to dismiss an application for unfair dismissal and found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act, and that the applicant had failed to respond to two notices sent by the Commission. In the circumstances, the Vice President dismissed the application for want of prosecution.

The Vice President ordered that the application be dismissed for want of prosecution.

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.