Daniel Quaill v Super Retail Group Summary

[2022] FWC 1325

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Quaill
v

Super Retail Group

(U2022/2255)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 1 JUNE 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Daniel Quaill was employed by Super Retail Group from the 24^th of June 2019 until they were dismissed on the 10^th of February 2022.

On the 21^st of February 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The respondent objected to the application on the basis that Daniel Quaill was never employed by the respondent and had named the incorrect employer.
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in this matter was Super Retail Group Services Pty Ltd.
On the 12^th of May 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent and they were required to respond by the 19^th of May 2022. No response was received from Daniel Quaill in this time.
On the 20^th of May 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing them to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 23^rd of May 2022. They were advised that in the absence of a reply their application may be dismissed.

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

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with a case between Daniel Quaill and Super Retail Group, where the applicant, Daniel Quaill, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under Section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Quaill was employed by Super Retail Group from 24 June 2019 until his dismissal on 10 February 2022. The respondent, Super Retail Group, contested the application, claiming that Quaill was never their employee and had named the incorrect employer. The respondent identified their legal business name as Super Retail Group Services Pty Ltd. The Commission was required to determine if the application was valid and whether it had reasonable prospects of success.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicant's claim for unfair dismissal was valid, given the respondent's objection to the application. The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed as it was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act, and that the application was frivolous or vexatious, or had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission had to consider if the application met the requirements of the Act and if it had reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the applicant's failure to respond to the jurisdictional objections and correspondence warranted the dismissal of the application.

The Commission considered the provisions of Section 587 of the Fair Work Act, which outlines the circumstances under which the FWC may dismiss an application. The Commission noted that the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent were valid, and that the applicant had failed to respond to the jurisdictional objections and correspondence sent by the Commission. The Commission determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Act, was frivolous or vexatious, or had no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the Commission decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution under Section 587(3)(a) of the Act.

In conclusion, the Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal made by Daniel Quaill against Super Retail Group for want of prosecution. The Commission found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act, was frivolous or vexatious, or had no reasonable prospects of success. The applicant's failure to respond to the jurisdictional objections and correspondence sent by the Commission led to the dismissal of the application. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

Daniel Quaill v Super Retail Group

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established