Carmel Gilroy v Debra Reason

Case [2022] FWC 3113


[2022] FWC 3113

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Carmel Gilroy
v

Debra Reason

(U2022/8982)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 NOVEMBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Carmel Gilroy (the applicant) was employed by Debra Reason (the respondent) from the 26th of April 2021 until she resigned on the 23rd of August 2022.

  1. On the 6th of September 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  2. The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Travid Pty Ltd ATF Mag Trust & Inpace Pty Ltd & Inpace Trust.

  3. On the 4th of November 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 11th of November 2022. No response was received at this time.

  4. Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 14th of November 2022 and she was required to respond by the 5:00pm 16th of November 2022. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised her application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  5. 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.

(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.

  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

<PR748238>

Details
AGLC
Carmel Gilroy v Debra Reason [2022] FWC 3113
Case
[2022] FWC 3113
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carmel Gilroy applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy, claiming she was unfairly dismissed by Debra Reason. Gilroy worked for Reason from 26 April 2021 until she resigned on 23 August 2022. Gilroy filed an application for a remedy on 6 September 2022. The respondent, Debra Reason, was represented by a legal business name, which was later found to be incorrect. On 4 November 2022, the Commission sent correspondence to Gilroy regarding this discrepancy and required a response by 11 November 2022. No response was received. Further correspondence was sent on 14 November 2022, requiring a response by 5:00pm on 16 November 2022, advising that the application would be dismissed without notice if no response was received. Gilroy did not respond to either correspondence. The Vice President dismissed the application for want of prosecution, citing section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative. An order to dismiss the application 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.