| [2022] FWC 1573 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Anndriana Lockley
v
Qin Lan Holdings Pty Ltd
(U2022/4076)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 21 JUNE 2022 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
Anndriana Lockley (the applicant) was employed by Qin Lan Holdings Pty Ltd from the 23rd of January 2020 until she was dismissed on the 22nd of March 2022.
On the 6th 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).
A conciliation was scheduled to take place on the 7th of June 2022 at 9:15am. The Applicant did not participate and was not able to be contacted.
On the 8th of June 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant and was required to respond by the 15th of June 2022 to clarify whether she wished to continue her application against the respondent or not.
On the 16th of June 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing her to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 20th of June 2022. The applicant was advised that in the absence of a reply, her application may be dismissed.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.
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
<PR742870>
- AGLC
- Anndriana Lockley v Qin Lan Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1573
- Case
- [2022] FWC 1573
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue for the Vice President to consider was whether the application should be dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This section outlines the circumstances in which the Fair Work Commission may dismiss an application, including if the application is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Vice President found that the words "without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application" at the commencement of section 587(1) of the Act established that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in section 587(1)(a), (b) and (c). In the circumstances, the Vice President decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Act.
In light of the above, the Vice President dismissed the unfair dismissal application for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. An order to that effect was issued 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.