Ben Lant v Pilbara Minerals Limited Summary

[2023] FWC 2313

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ben Lant
v

Pilbara Minerals Limited

(U2023/7535)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Ben Lant (the applicant) was employed by Pilbara Minerals Limited (the respondent) from the 7^th of September 2022 through to the 5^th of June 2023, when he was allegedly dismissed.

On the 12^th of August 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The application was lodged 47 days out of time.
On the 30^th of August 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and he was required to respond by the 4^th of September 2023. No response was received at this time.
On the 5^th of September 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing him to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 7^th of September 2023. He was advised in this correspondence that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.
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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ben Lant v Pilbara Minerals Limited, the applicant, Ben Lant, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Lant was employed by Pilbara Minerals Limited from September 2022 until his alleged dismissal on June 5, 2023. On August 12, 2023, Lant made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy, which was lodged 47 days outside the prescribed time limit. Despite being notified of the late filing and given multiple opportunities to respond, Lant did not engage with the Commission’s correspondence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Fair Work Commission had the jurisdiction to dismiss Lant's application for being lodged outside the allowable time frame and for his failure to respond to multiple notifications. The court was required to consider the provisions of section 587 of the Act, which outlines the circumstances under which an application may be dismissed. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the application was frivolous, vexatious, or had no reasonable prospects of success, and whether the late filing and lack of response constituted grounds for dismissal.

The court found that the language of section 587(1) of the Act, which states that the Commission may dismiss an application without limitation to the circumstances outlined, affirmed the broad jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss applications. Given that Lant did not respond to any correspondence and the application was lodged well beyond the allowable period, the court concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and was effectively abandoned by the applicant. Consequently, the court decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act.

An order dismissing the application will be issued with this decision.

Ben Lant v Pilbara Minerals Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established