Darryl Kessell v Geoffrey Putland

[2022] FWC 1250

[2022] FWC 1250

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Darryl Kessell
v

Geoffrey Putland

(U2022/1962)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 20 MAY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

1. Darryl Kessell was employed by Geoffrey Putland from the 22^nd of March 2021 until they were dismissed on the 2^nd of February 2022.

1. On the 15^th 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).

1. A conciliation was not scheduled for this matter, as the respondent had advised the Unfair Dismissals Team that they would like to proceed to a jurisdictional objections hearing prior to the Unfair Dismissal case is heard in conciliation.
   
   

2. On the 1^st of April, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to a jurisdictional objection raised by Geoffrey Putland and they were required to respond by the 8^th of April 2022.
   
   

3. On the 11^th of April 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing them to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 14^th of April 2022. They were advised that in the absence of a reply their application may be dismissed.

1. To date, Darryl Kessell 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

<PR741846>