Carole Hanrahan v Identitywa Summary

[2022] FWC 2143

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Carole Hanrahan
v

Identitywa

(U2022/6144)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 AUGUST 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Carole Hanrahan (the applicant) was employed by Identitywa (the respondent) from the 17^th of January 2018 until she was dismissed on the 18^th of May 2022.

On the 8^th of June 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth.
On the 19^th of July 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 26^th of July 2022. No response was received at this time.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

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

Carole Hanrahan has filed an unfair dismissal claim against Identitywa before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which was originally dismissed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth. The applicant was employed by Identitywa from January 2018 until her dismissal in May 2022. The legal issues at hand primarily revolve around the procedural compliance of the applicant's dismissal claim under Section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly concerning the identification of the employer in the application form. The applicant failed to respond to correspondence regarding a discrepancy in the legal business name of the respondent.

The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the application could be dismissed under Section 587 of the Act. This section outlines the grounds upon which the FWC may dismiss an application, including instances where the application is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. Vice President Catanzariti considered the procedural failures of the applicant, who did not respond to correspondence regarding the legal business name discrepancy, and concluded that the application had not been prosecuted diligently.

Based on the lack of response to correspondence and the procedural non-compliance, Vice President Catanzariti decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution under Section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The decision was made on the FWC's own initiative, recognising that the jurisdiction to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in Section 587(1). The decision highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the timeliness of responses to correspondence from the Commission. An order will be issued in accordance with this decision.

Carole Hanrahan v Identitywa

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established