Dean Watson v Direct Freight Express

Case [2022] FWC 2585


[2022] FWC 2585

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dean Watson
v

Direct Freight Express

(U2022/7115)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Dean Watson (the applicant) was employed by Direct freight Express (the respondent) from the 6th of September 2021 until he was dismissed on the 30th of June 2022.

  1. On the 14th of July 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  2. The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Direct Freight (AUST).

  3. On the 13th of September 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 20th of September 2022. No response was received at this time.

  4. Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 21st of September 2022 and she was required to respond by the 5:00pm 23rd of September 2022. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  5. To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

  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

<PR746220>

Details
AGLC
Dean Watson v Direct Freight Express [2022] FWC 2585
Case
[2022] FWC 2585
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dean Watson made an application for unfair dismissal against Direct Freight Express under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant was employed by the respondent from September 2021 until his dismissal on June 2022. The respondent identified itself in the proceedings as Direct Freight (AUST). Watson made the application for unfair dismissal on July 14, 2022. The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the application should be dismissed.

The central issue before the Vice President was whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The Vice President considered the statutory provisions and the circumstances of the case, including the lack of response from Watson to multiple correspondences from the Commission. The Vice President concluded that the application was not being prosecuted as required by the Act.

The Vice President determined that the statutory provisions allowed the Commission to dismiss an application for want of prosecution without limitation to the circumstances listed. Given Watson's failure to respond to the Commission's correspondence, the Vice President dismissed the application under section 587(3)(a). An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

The Vice President dismissed the application for unfair dismissal made by Dean Watson against Direct Freight Express for want of prosecution. The Vice President found that the application had not been prosecuted as required by the Fair Work Act 2009, and accordingly dismissed the application under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect 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.