Chakkarin Chuabunmi v Primary Connect Summary

[2022] FWC 2123

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Chakkarin Chuabunmi
v

Primary Connect

(U2022/6123)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 AUGUST 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Chakkarin Chuabunmi (the applicant) was employed by Primary Connect (the respondent) from the 8^th of October 2007 until he was dismissed on the 22^nd 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 Woolworths Group Limited.
On the 20^th of July 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 27^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

The case of Chakkarin Chuabunmi v Primary Connect involved the applicant, Chakkarin Chuabunmi, who sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant was employed by the respondent, Primary Connect, from October 2007 until his dismissal in May 2022. The respondent's legal business name was identified as Woolworths Group Limited in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form. The applicant filed the unfair dismissal application on 8 June 2022, and despite multiple correspondences, did not respond to the issues raised by the Commission regarding the discrepancy in the legal business name.

The primary legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the application could be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission considered the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence regarding the legal business name discrepancy and the general lack of engagement in the proceedings. Section 587(1) of the Act provides the Commission with the authority to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, if it is frivolous or vexatious, or if it has no reasonable prospects of success. Furthermore, section 587(3) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative or on application. Given the applicant's unresponsiveness and the clear indications that the application had no reasonable prospects of success, the Commission decided to exercise its jurisdiction under section 587(3)(a).

In deciding to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, the Commission underscored that the statutory language in section 587(1) is not exhaustive of the Commission's powers. The Vice President found that the application did not comply with the requirements of the Act due to the failure to address the legal business name issue and the applicant's overall lack of engagement. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and an order to that effect was issued.

Chakkarin Chuabunmi v Primary Connect

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established