Charlie King v Apex Hunting Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 1047

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Charlie King
v

Apex Hunting Pty Ltd

(U2025/397)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 14 APRIL 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy– dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 12 January 2025, Mr Charlie King made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr King’s application raised a concern about whether his application was filed within the 21-day time limit.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr King on 17 February and 6 March 2025 by email and SMS about this concern. Mr King has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings for want of prosecution. If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

I am satisfied that Mr King has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr King’s application. I make the following order:

The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Charlie King on 12 January 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Charlie King filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application pertained to his dismissal by Apex Hunting Pty Ltd, and he sought a remedy for what he considered an unjust termination. However, the application was subject to scrutiny regarding whether it was filed within the stipulated 21-day period. Commission staff attempted to contact Mr King twice in February and March 2025 to address concerns about the timeliness of his application, but he did not respond to these communications.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether Mr King's failure to respond to the Commission's correspondence indicated that he was no longer willing to pursue his application. Under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act, the FWC has the authority to dismiss an application on its own initiative if the applicant's conduct or omissions suggest a lack of interest in continuing with the case. This decision hinges on whether Mr King's inaction demonstrated a relinquishment of his right to pursue the application.

In considering the matter, Deputy President Easton concluded that Mr King had been given ample opportunity to address the concerns about the timeliness of his application and to provide any necessary explanations. Given his failure to respond, the Deputy President found that Mr King's inaction amounted to a lack of willingness to pursue the case. Therefore, the application was dismissed under section 587 of the Act for want of prosecution. The Deputy President made it clear that the dismissal was a result of Mr King's failure to engage with the Commission on the matter.

Charlie King v Apex Hunting Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established