Dejai Scott v Digital Eagles Pty Ltd

[2023] FWC 179

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dejai Scott
v

Digital Eagles Pty Ltd

(U2021/6527)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 20 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 23 July 2021 Mr Dejai Scott (the Applicant) made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) alleging he was unfairly dismissed by Digital Eagles Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 11 August 2021 the Commission was made aware that the Respondent had entered external administration. On 2 September 2021 a Decision[1] was issued staying the matter until leave of a Court was granted.

On 6 January 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Scott’s nominated email address advising him that his matter is at risk of being dismissed as it is apparent he does not intend to seek the leave of the Court. Mr Scott was asked to reply by 12.00 pm 13 January 2023.

The Commission has not received any correspondence from Mr Scott.

Section 587 of the FW Act provides as follows:

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.

In the circumstances where leave of the Court is required to proceed, and that leave has not been sought by Mr Scott, I am satisfied that Mr Scott’s application has no reasonable prospects of success.

As such, I order that the application be dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

[1][2021] FWC 5462

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dejai Scott brought an application for unfair dismissal against Digital Eagles Pty Ltd before the Fair Work Commission, alleging he was unfairly dismissed. The Commission received notification that the respondent had entered external administration and subsequently stayed the matter until leave of a Court was granted. The Commission later notified Mr Scott that his matter was at risk of dismissal as it appeared he did not intend to seek the leave of the Court. Mr Scott was asked to reply by a specified time, but no correspondence was received from him. The Commissioner found that Mr Scott's application had no reasonable prospects of success due to the requirement of Court leave and Mr Scott's inaction in seeking it.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Scott's application for unfair dismissal had reasonable prospects of success, particularly in light of the respondent's external administration and the need for Court leave to proceed. The Commission considered whether the application was made in accordance with the Act, whether it was frivolous or vexatious, and whether it had reasonable prospects of success. Given the circumstances, the Commissioner concluded that Mr Scott's application had no reasonable prospects of success because he had not sought the necessary Court leave, and there was no indication he intended to do so.

The Commissioner ordered the dismissal of Mr Scott's application for unfair dismissal under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act, finding that the application had no reasonable prospects of success due to the absence of Court leave and Mr Scott's inaction. The decision was based on the procedural requirement of obtaining Court leave in cases involving external administration and Mr Scott's failure to respond to the Commission's request for confirmation of his intentions. The application was dismissed as it did not meet the criteria for proceeding further.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established