Gavin Lionel Hikupehi Carroll v Macmahon Underground

Case [2023] FWC 954


[2023] FWC 954

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Gavin Lionel Hikupehi Carroll
v

Macmahon Underground

(U2023/1352)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 26 APRIL 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Gavin Lionel Hikupehi Carroll (the applicant) was employed by Macmahon Underground (the respondent) from the 17th of February 2022 onwards.

  1. On the 20th of February 2023, 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 Macmahon Underground Pty Ltd.

  3. The respondent also raised an objection in the F3 – Employer’s Response Form stating that the applicant earned higher than the income threshold, claiming the applicant earned $206,515.

  4. On the 28th of March 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the jurisdictional issues mentioned above and he was required to respond by the 4th of April 2023. No response was received at this time.

  5. Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 5th of April 2023 and he was required to respond by 5:00pm the 11th of April 2023. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  6. 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

<PR761287>

Details
AGLC
Gavin Lionel Hikupehi Carroll v Macmahon Underground [2023] FWC 954
Case
[2023] FWC 954
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter, Gavin Lionel Hikupehi Carroll, was employed by Macmahon Underground and made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Macmahon Underground objected to the application on jurisdictional grounds, claiming that the applicant earned above the income threshold. The applicant failed to respond to correspondence from the Commission regarding the jurisdictional issues, leading to the dismissal of the application.

The legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Act. The Commission noted that section 587(1) of the Act explicitly states that the jurisdiction to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances outlined in subsections (a), (b) and (c). The Commission decided to dismiss the application under section 587(3)(a) of the Act on its own initiative, as the applicant had failed to respond to correspondence from the Commission.

The Commission's decision was based on the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence from the Commission regarding the jurisdictional issues. The Commission found that the application had no reasonable prospects of success, and as such, it was appropriate to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The Commission noted that it had the authority to dismiss the application under section 587(3)(a) of the Act, and it exercised that authority in this case.

An order dismissing the application for unfair dismissal will issue with this decision. The dismissal is without any order as to costs.

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.