Bailey Horton v Avocet Island Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 3311


[2023] FWC 3311

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Bailey Horton
v

Avocet Island Pty Ltd

(U2023/10437)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 DECEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. Bailey Horton (the Applicant) was employed by Avocet Island Pty Ltd (the Respondent) from 22 April 201 until he was dismissed on 13 October 2023.

  1. On 24 October 2023, the Applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The Respondent raised an objection in the F3 – Employer’s Response Form stating that the Applicant had not met the minimum employment period.

  1. On 24 November 2023, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in relation to the jurisdictional issue mentioned above and he was required to respond by 1 December 2023. No response was received at this time.

  1. Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 5 December 2023 and he was required to respond by 5:00pm on 8 December 2023. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  1. To date, the Applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

  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.

Note:   For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2)       Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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)       The 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

<PR769285>

Details
AGLC
Bailey Horton v Avocet Island Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 3311
Case
[2023] FWC 3311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Bailey Horton v Avocet Island Pty Ltd involved an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made by Horton, who was dismissed by Avocet Island Pty Ltd. The dismissal occurred on 13 October 2023, and Horton filed his application for unfair dismissal on 24 October 2023. Avocet Island Pty Ltd objected to the application on the basis that Horton had not satisfied the minimum employment period requirement. The application was subsequently dismissed by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for want of prosecution.

The legal issue before the FWC was whether the application for an unfair dismissal remedy should be dismissed for want of prosecution. This issue was informed by the provisions of s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which outlines the circumstances under which an application may be dismissed by the FWC. The Respondent's objection centred on the minimum employment period requirement, but the Vice President found that the dismissal for want of prosecution was justified under s.587(3)(a) of the Act. The Vice President noted that the FWC has broad discretion to dismiss an application on its own initiative, and that this discretion is not limited to the specific circumstances outlined in s.587(1)(a), (b), and (c).

The Vice President found that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution. This was due to the Applicant's failure to respond to multiple correspondences from the FWC, despite being repeatedly advised of the consequences of non-response. The Vice President considered that the Applicant's failure to engage with the proceedings constituted a lack of prosecution, which justified dismissal under s.587(3)(a) of the Act. The dismissal was made without prejudice to any other legal remedies that the Applicant may have.

The final orders of the FWC were that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy be dismissed for want of prosecution. The dismissal was made pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will issue 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.