Clay Dodd v MMG Australia Limited

Case [2023] FWC 1578


[2023] FWC 1578

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Clay Dodd
v

MMG Australia Limited

(U2023/5250)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 30 JUNE 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Clay Dodd (the applicant) was employed by MMG Australia Limited (the respondent), and he was allegedly dismissed on the 12th of May 2023.

  1. On the 13th of June 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  2. The application was lodged 11 days out of time.

  3. On the 20th of June 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and he was required to respond by the 23rd of June 2023.

  4. On the 26th of June 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing him to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 26th of June 2023. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

  5. The applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.

  1. 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.

  1. 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).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR763758>

Details
AGLC
Clay Dodd v MMG Australia Limited [2023] FWC 1578
Case
[2023] FWC 1578
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Clay Dodd, lodged an application for unfair dismissal against his former employer, MMG Australia Limited, under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Dodd claimed to have been dismissed on 12 May 2023. The application was lodged 11 days outside the prescribed time limit. Correspondence was sent to Dodd on 20 June 2023, asking for his response by 23 June 2023. A further reminder was sent on 26 June 2023, requiring a response by 5:00pm on the same day, or the application would be dismissed. Dodd did not respond to either communication. The Commission considered whether to dismiss the application under section 587 of the Act, which allows for dismissal if the application is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Vice President concluded that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a), given the lack of response from Dodd to the correspondence. The decision was made to dismiss the application, with an order to that effect to be issued alongside this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.