Dean Hassall v Technigro Summary

[2025] FWC 940

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dean Hassall
v

Technigro

(U2025/309)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 3 APRIL 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 9 January 2025, Mr Dean Hassall made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Hassall did not attend his telephone conciliation that was scheduled for 11 February 2025.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr Hassall on 11 February, 13 February and 19 February 2025 by telephone, email and SMS about whether he wants to continue his unfair dismissal claim.. Mr Hassall has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings for want of prosecution. If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

I am satisfied that Mr Hassall has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Hassall’s application. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Dean Hassall on 9 January 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dean Hassall made an application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for unfair dismissal against his employer, Technigro. Mr Hassall did not attend his scheduled conciliation meeting on 11 February 2025. After several attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Hassall regarding the status of his application, he did not respond. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application under s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on the basis that Mr Hassall was not prosecuting his application.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether Mr Hassall's failure to respond to the Commission's correspondence and his non-attendance at the conciliation meeting constituted a lack of willingness to participate in the proceedings, warranting the dismissal of his application. The Fair Work Act 2009 provides that the Commission can dismiss an application for want of prosecution if the applicant's conduct or omissions show they are no longer willing to participate in their own case. Deputy President Easton considered the circumstances and concluded that Mr Hassall had not shown any interest in pursuing his claim, thereby satisfying the criteria for dismissal.

Deputy President Easton determined that Mr Hassall had been given ample opportunity to present his case and respond to the Commission's inquiries. Given his lack of engagement and response, it was reasonable to conclude that Mr Hassall was no longer willing to participate in the proceedings. Accordingly, the Deputy President dismissed the application under s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The order was made to dismiss Mr Hassall's application for unfair dismissal.

Dean Hassall v Technigro

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established