Amanda Hardie v Austinmer Vet or Coleman Trust

[2022] FWC 2583

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Amanda Hardie
v

Austinmer Vet Or Coleman Trust

(U2022/6199)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Amanda Hardie (the applicant) was employed by Austinmer Vet Or Coleman Trust (the respondent) from the 22^nd of June 2021 until she was dismissed on the 28^th of May 2022.

On the 10^th of June 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Highview Vets PTY LTD, Jarrod and Emily Coleman.
On the 13^th of September 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 20^th of September 2022. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 21^st of September 2022 and she was required to respond by the 5:00pm 23^rd of September 2022. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised her application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

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.

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).

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

An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amanda Hardie filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against Austinmer Vet Or Coleman Trust, which was previously referred to as Highview Vets PTY LTD, Jarrod and Emily Coleman. The applicant was employed by the respondent from 22 June 2021 until her dismissal on 28 May 2022. Hardie applied for a remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 10 June 2022. Despite being notified of a discrepancy in the respondent’s legal business name and the need to address it, Hardie did not respond to the correspondence sent to her. Following further correspondence, the applicant still did not respond and the application was dismissed without notice.
The court had to decide whether the application could be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the applicant’s failure to respond to correspondence regarding the discrepancy in the respondent’s legal business name. The court considered section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides that the Fair Work Commission may dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The court noted that the dismissal of an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in section 587(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. The court decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Act.
The court found that Hardie did not respond to the correspondence sent to her in relation to the discrepancy in the respondent’s legal business name. Despite being advised that her application would be dismissed without notice if she did not respond, Hardie did not provide any response. The court decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution and an order to that effect will issue with this decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established