Hayden Chant v Christian Outreach Centre
[2025] FWC 225
•23 JANUARY 2025
| [2025] FWC 225 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Hayden Chant
v
Christian Outreach Centre
(U2024/12900)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON | BRISBANE, 23 JANUARY 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - application dismissed – plain English
This decision relates to an unfair dismissal application by Mr Hayden Chant (the Applicant) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) against his former employer, Christian Outreach Centre (the Respondent) filed on 28 October 2024.
On 10 December 2024, I issued directions for the filing of material. The directions included a requirement that Mr Chant file material by no later than 4:00pm (AEST) on 7 January 2025. Mr Chant failed to do so.
On 17 January 2025, my chambers wrote to Mr Chant informing him that he had not complied with directions to file his materials nor sought an extension to do so. I provided Mr Chant with a further extension to file his materials by no later than 4:00pm on 20 January 2025. Mr Chant was warned that his failure to follow directions could result in the dismissal of his application without further reference to him.
On 18 January 2025, Mr Chant wrote to my Chambers, without copying the Respondent to inform that he had been unable to gather the “necessary information” and provided some alleged reasons for his failure to comply with the directions. On 19 January 2025, my chambers wrote to Mr Chant to inform he was again required to file his material and evidence to support his extension request by 4:00pm AEST 20 January 2025.
Again, Mr Chant failed to file his material as directed. On 21 January 2025, my chambers again wrote to Mr Chant noting his failure to provide the material as directed. Mr Chant was directed to make contact with my chambers by no later than 4:00pm that day to provide reasons for his repeated failure to comply with directions or respond to correspondence. Mr Chant was given an opportunity to withdraw his claim or advise of he intended to proceed with his claim. Mr Chant was advised that a failure to respond could result in his application being dismissed with no further warnings. Again, Mr Chant failed to respond, and he also failed to file his material by the new extended deadline.
Consideration
The Act provides the circumstances that an application may be dismissed.[1]
I note that Act does not limit the reasons when the FWC may dismiss an application.[2] In considering further whether Mr Chant’s application should be dismissed on the initiative of the FWC,[3] I am satisfied that Mr Chant has unreasonably and repeatedly failed to comply with directions to file his materials, provide evidence to support reasons why he has not filed his materials or to respond to communication from my Chambers.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I consider that it is appropriate to dismiss Mr Chant’s application under s.587(3)(a) for want of prosecution. Pursuant to s.587(3)(a), Mr Chant’s unfair dismissal application is dismissed. I so order.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] 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.
Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for general protections made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.
(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b)on application.
[2] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.587(1).
[3] Ibid s.587(3)(a).
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR783628>
0
0
0