Daniel Hayes v The Trustee for Wallaga Lake Village Unit Trust

Case [2023] FWC 2043


[2023] FWC 2043

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Hayes
v

The Trustee For Wallaga Lake Village Unit Trust

(U2023/3987)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 AUGUST 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Daniel Hayes (the applicant) was employed by The Trustee For Wallaga Lake Village Unit Trust (the respondent) from the 18th of August 2022 through to the 19th of April 2023.

  1. On the 9th of May 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The respondent objected to the application on the basis that the applicant did not meet the minimum employment period required to lodge an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

  2. On the 13th of July 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent and he was required to respond by the 20th of July 2023. No response was received from the applicant at this time.

  3. On the 21st of July 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing him to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 25th of July 2023. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

  1. To date, the applicant has not responded to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent, or any further correspondence sent by my Chambers in writing.

  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

<PR765237>

Details
AGLC
Daniel Hayes v The Trustee for Wallaga Lake Village Unit Trust [2023] FWC 2043
Case
[2023] FWC 2043
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Hayes applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, claiming he was dismissed by The Trustee For Wallaga Lake Village Unit Trust. The Trustee objected to the application, stating Hayes did not meet the minimum employment period required to lodge such an application. Correspondence was sent to Hayes to respond to the jurisdictional objections, but he did not respond. Further correspondence was sent, and Hayes still did not respond to the objections or the correspondence.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The relevant provision, s.587(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, states that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish 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). The Commission decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

The Commission found that the application had been pending for a significant period of time, and despite multiple opportunities to respond to the jurisdictional objections, Hayes did not do so. The Commission concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and that it was appropriate to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The Commission noted that it had considered the provisions of s.587(2) of the Act, which provides that the Commission must not dismiss an application on the ground that it is frivolous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospects of success if the application is made under s.365 or 773. However, the application in this case was made under s.394 of the Act, and the provisions of s.587(2) did not apply.

An order dismissing the application for want of prosecution will issue with 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.