Deyvid Vranic v Limitless Golf Pty Ltd T/A Limitless Golf By Rnd Pty Ltd

[2023] FWC 99

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Deyvid Vranic
v

Limitless Golf Pty Ltd T/A Limitless Golf By Rnd Pty Ltd

(U2022/11283)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Deyvid Vranic (the applicant) was employed by Limitless Golf Pty Ltd T/A Limitless Golf By Rnd Pty Ltd (the respondent) from the 3^rd of August 2020 until he resigned on the 4^th of October 2022.

On the 25^th of November 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

According to the respondent’s F3 – Employer’s Response Form, the application was lodged 31 days out of time.
On the 15^th of December 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and he was required to respond by the 20^th of December 2022.
On the 21^st of December 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing her to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 23^rd of December 2022. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

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

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

In the matter of Deyvid Vranic against Limitless Golf Pty Ltd T/A Limitless Golf By Rnd Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was asked to determine if the dismissal of Mr. Vranic was unfair. Mr. Vranic, employed by the respondent from August 2020 until his resignation in October 2022, applied for a remedy under Section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging unfair dismissal. The respondent argued that the application was lodged 31 days out of time and sought dismissal on that basis.

The central legal issue was whether the Commission had the authority to dismiss the application for being out of time, and if so, whether it was appropriate to do so in this case. The applicant's failure to respond to multiple notices regarding the timeliness of the application complicated the matter. The Commission had to consider the provisions of Section 587 of the Act, which allows for the dismissal of applications on various grounds, including being out of time. Furthermore, the Court had to determine whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, or had no reasonable prospects of success.

In its reasoning, the Fair Work Commission found that Section 587(1) of the Act gave it broad jurisdiction to dismiss an application, including those that were out of time. The Commission noted that the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence about the timeliness of the application indicated a lack of diligence in pursuing the matter. Given that the application was lodged beyond the allowable timeframe and the applicant did not respond to requests to rectify this, the Commission found it appropriate to dismiss the application for want of prosecution under Section 587(3)(a) of the Act.

The Commission issued an order dismissing the application for being lodged out of time and for want of prosecution. The decision emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in applications to the Fair Work Commission, and the consequences of failing to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established