| [2023] FWC 908 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Coby Reynolds
v
Crunch Firness
(U2023/1583)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 19 APRIL 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
Coby Reynolds (the applicant) was employed by Crunch Firness (the respondent) from the 21st of June 2022 until he was dismissed on the 30th of January 2023.
On the 27th of February 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The respondent raised an objection that the application was lodged 7 days out of time.
On the 29th of March 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 3rd of April 2023.
On the 4th of April 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing him to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 6th of April 2023. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.
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
<PR761165>
- AGLC
- Coby Reynolds v Crunch Firness [2023] FWC 908
- Case
- [2023] FWC 908
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the Vice President was whether the application could be dismissed for being out of time and for want of prosecution. The Vice President considered the statutory provisions regarding the dismissal of applications, particularly s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Vice President noted that s.587(1) of the Act establishes that the Commission’s jurisdiction to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c). Given the circumstances, the Vice President decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.
The Vice President found that Reynolds' failure to respond to correspondence regarding the objection and the statutory time limits resulted in the dismissal of his application. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of strict compliance with statutory time limits and the need for applicants to respond promptly to correspondence from the Commission. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the application.
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.