Amritpal Singh v Siobhan Brennan, Kim Beamish, Cyle Sallows, Lord Forrest Nominees Pty Ltd T/A Best Western Plus Hotel Lord Forrest

[2025] FWC 458

[2025] FWC 458

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Amritpal Singh
v

Siobhan Brennan, Kim Beamish, Cyle Sallows, Lord Forrest Nominees Pty Ltd T/A Best Western Plus Hotel Lord Forrest

(AB2024/665)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’KEEFFE PERTH, 14 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – application not pursued - application dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Act.

[1]        On 28 August 2024 Mr Amritpal Singh applied for a stop bullying order, alleging that he had been bullied at work at the Lord Forrest Hotel by three named employees. His employer, being Lord Forrest Nominees Pty Ltd (the Respondent) objected to the application on behalf of itself and the named employees, claiming the alleged bullying was reasonable management action.

[2]        Following requests for adjournments from Mr Singh, I conducted a conference between the parties on 12 November 2024. At that time, Mr Singh was absent from work as he had been diagnosed as medically unfit. Given that it was unlikely – based on the medical evidence – that Mr Singh would return to work in the short term, I advised the parties and confirmed this advice via email that I would leave the file open and once Mr Singh was fit to work I would convene a further conference. On 20 December 2024 I caused my Chambers to email Mr Singh as follows:

“Dear Mr Singh,

Deputy President O’Keeffe requests that you provide an update to Chambers if you have a date for when you may be cleared to return to work to enable Chambers to list this matter for conference.

Chambers requests that you provide an update by no later than 4:00pm (AWST) Tuesday 24 December 2024.”

[3]         On 24 December 2024 Mr Singh replied as follows:

“Thank you for your email.

I am still under medical treatment and still on medication and not fit to work as advised by doctor.
My next appointment with doctor is on 10th of January as I am still suffering with my mental health.
I will (sic) able to give you update accordingly.”

[4]         No correspondence was subsequently received from Mr Singh and so on 29 January 2025 my Chambers wrote to him as follows:

“Dear Mr Singh,

Noting the below correspondence that stated you would provide an update to Chambers.

Deputy President O’Keeffe requests that you provide an update to Chambers if you have a date for when you may be cleared to return to work to enable Chambers to list this matter for conference.”

[5]         No response was received from Mr Singh. As a consequence, my Chambers wrote to him again on 4 February 2025 as follows:

“Dear Mr Singh,

Deputy President O’Keeffe requests an update if you have a date for when you may be cleared to return to work to enable Chambers to list this matter for conference.”

[6]         No response was received from Mr Singh. I then caused my Chambers to write to Mr Singh as follows on 10 February 2025:

“Dear Mr Singh,

Chambers notes your failure to respond to the below two emails.

Deputy President O’Keeffe directs you to provide an update by no later than 4:00pm (AWST) Tuesday, 11 February 2025.

Furthermore, Mr Singh you are advised that failure to comply with the directions above may result in the application being dismissed on the basis that it is not being properly pursued.

[7]         As at 4.00 (AWST) on 12 February 2025 no response had been received from Mr Singh.

[8]         Previous decisions of the FWC have found that the items in s587(1)(a)-(c) do not limit the powers of the FWC to dismiss applications (Samuel v Collins Transport Group Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 5521 (Samuel) at [12]) and that it has been found that an Applicant’s failure to prosecute their application can be a grounds for dismissal (Sayer v Melsteel Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 7498 at [16]; Samuel at [13]; Atakaramians v Baycorp (AUS) Pty Ltd t/as Baycorp [2013] FWC 7641 at [8])

[9]        In this instance, I am persuaded to exercise my powers under s587 to dismiss the application. The Applicant has been given several opportunities to advise the FWC of his condition and has failed to respond to correspondence on each occasion, noting that he was directed to respond in the last instance. In these circumstances it is clear that the Applicant has no intention of pursuing his application. An order dismissing the application will issue.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR784403>