Chris Fletcher v The Trustee for Macksville Unit Trust Summary

[2025] FWC 1386

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Chris Fletcher
v

The Trustee For Macksville Unit Trust

(U2025/2972)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 20 MAY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed

Mr Fletcher has filed an unfair dismissal application against the trustee for the Macksville Unit Trust (Respondent).

Mr Fletcher failed to attend directions hearings, by telephone, before me on 5 and 12 May 2025.

The Respondent has applied to have Mr Fletcher’s unfair dismissal application dismissed on the basis that he unreasonably failed to attend the directions hearings on 5 May and 12 May 2025. Mr Fletcher was given an opportunity to respond to this application. He did not do so.

I am satisfied that Mr Fletcher has unreasonably failed to attend the directions hearings on 5 and 12 May 2025. Mr Fletcher has not given any indication that he wishes to pursue his unfair dismissal application against the Respondent.

Having regard to all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to exercise my discretion under s 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to dismiss Mr Fletcher’s unfair dismissal application against the Respondent.

Mr Fletcher’s unfair dismissal application against the Respondent is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with an application for unfair dismissal by Chris Fletcher against The Trustee for Macksville Unit Trust. Mr Fletcher did not attend the directions hearings on 5 and 12 May 2025, which were held by telephone. The respondent moved to dismiss Mr Fletcher's application due to his failure to attend the required hearings, and Mr Fletcher did not respond to this motion. Deputy President Saunders was tasked with determining whether Mr Fletcher's dismissal of the application was justified.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Fletcher's failure to attend the required directions hearings constituted unreasonable behaviour, warranting the dismissal of his unfair dismissal application. The respondent argued that Mr Fletcher's non-attendance was unreasonable, while Mr Fletcher did not provide any response or justification for his absence. The court had to weigh the circumstances and decide if the dismissal of Mr Fletcher's application was appropriate under s 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Deputy President Saunders found that Mr Fletcher's failure to attend the directions hearings was unreasonable, as he did not provide any indication of his intention to pursue the unfair dismissal application. Given the circumstances and Mr Fletcher's lack of response, the Deputy President exercised their discretion to dismiss Mr Fletcher's application against the respondent. This decision was based on the understanding that Mr Fletcher had not shown any interest in continuing with the application, and therefore, it was appropriate to dismiss it.

Mr Fletcher's unfair dismissal application against The Trustee for Macksville Unit Trust was dismissed. This decision was made in light of Mr Fletcher's unreasonable failure to attend the required directions hearings, and his subsequent lack of response or indication of intent to pursue the application.

Chris Fletcher v The Trustee for Macksville Unit Trust

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established