Carrie-anne Caporn v South West Personal Summary

[2025] FWC 625

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Carrie-anne Caporn
v

South West Personal

(U2024/15043)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 28 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

On 13 December 2024, Miss Carrie-anne Caporn made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the following reasons I am satisfied that Miss Caporn’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

Miss Caporn indicated in her Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application that she commenced employment with South West Personnel on 4 November 2024 and that her dismissal took effect on 20 November 2024. On the information provided by Miss Caporn, she was employed for 2 weeks and 2 days.

Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Miss Caporn the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff attempted to contact Miss Caporn on 17, 18 and 19 December 2024 and 4 February 2025 by telephone, SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.

Section 587 – General Principles

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application. The relevant provisions of s.587 are:

“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.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.

Does Caporn’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Miss Caporn’s dismissal until it is satisfied that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

The information provided by Miss Caporn on her Form F2 application strongly indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

Miss Caporn had the opportunity to provide information that could show that she had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However, Miss Caporn has not provided any information that is consistent with her having done so.

I am satisfied that Miss Caporn has had the opportunity to put her case for consideration on all matters material to the making of the decision to dismiss her application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).

I am satisfied that Miss Caporn’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss her application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a). I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Miss Carrie-anne Caporn on 13 December 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Fair Work Commission, Carrie-anne Caporn brought an unfair dismissal application against South West Personal. Caporn alleged that she was dismissed without valid reason or prior notice, and that the dismissal was unfair. The application was lodged under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Commission was required to determine if Caporn's application had any reasonable prospects of success and whether the application should be dismissed under section 587 of the Act.

The primary legal issue was whether Caporn's application had any reasonable prospects of success. According to sections 382 and 383 of the Act, a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum employment period before their dismissal. Caporn indicated that she was employed for 2 weeks and 2 days, which was less than the 6-month minimum employment period. The Commission had previously attempted to contact Caporn regarding the minimum employment period, but she did not provide any information to suggest she had met the minimum period requirement. Therefore, the Commission had to determine if Caporn's application could succeed given the lack of the required employment period.

The Deputy President considered the statutory provisions and the relevant case law, particularly Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge. The Deputy President held that the application should not be dismissed under section 587 unless it was very clear that there were no reasonable prospects of success. However, the Deputy President was satisfied that Caporn's application had no reasonable prospect of success because she had not met the minimum employment period. Caporn had the opportunity to provide information to support her eligibility, but she did not do so. The Deputy President concluded that it was appropriate to dismiss Caporn's application on the Commission's own initiative under section 587(3)(a).

The Deputy President dismissed Caporn's unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on 28 February 2025. The dismissal was made on the basis that Caporn's application had no reasonable prospects of success due to her failure to complete the minimum employment period.

Carrie-anne Caporn v South West Personal

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established