Hugo Meagher v Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Summary

[2024] FWC 3158

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.739—Dispute resolution

Hugo Meagher
v

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

(C2024/6352)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 15 NOVEMBER 2024

Application to deal with a dispute – application dismissed for failure to comply with directions

This decision concerns an application made by Mr Hugo Meagher (Applicant) pursuant to s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the Commission to deal with a dispute with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (the Respondent) under the dispute settlement procedure in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Enterprise Agreement 2024-27.

There has been extensive correspondence between the Commission and the Applicant in relation to this matter and another application made by the Applicant alleging bullying and harassment.
A conference was listed on 25 October 2024 which the Applicant and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the conference, a hearing date was set and directions were issued requiring the parties to file and serve material in support of their positions. The parties also agreed on a question for determination by the Commission.
The directions required the Applicant to file and serve his material by 8 November 2024. The Applicant did not do so. The Commission provided additional time to the Applicant, extending the date by which his material was due to 13 November 2024. Again, no material was filed by the Applicant. The Applicant was informed by email that a failure to comply with directions of the Commission may lead to his application being dismissed.
On 14 November 2024, the Commission again wrote to the Applicant as no material had been filed by him. He was advised that a failure to comply with directions without a compelling reason would result in his application being dismissed, and he was given further time to explain his non-compliance.

No correspondence or contact has been received from the Applicant to this date.

Section 587 of the Act provides the Commission with a broad discretion to dismiss an application. It reads:

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 Applicant has failed to comply with directions of the Commission, despite additional time being granted to him to do so. He has not responded to any recent correspondence of the Commission. I am satisfied that the Applicant has not demonstrated an intention to pursue his application and accordingly, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587 of the Act.

An order dismissing the application will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This decision involves Mr Hugo Meagher, who made an application under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking the Fair Work Commission to resolve a dispute with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. The application was lodged in relation to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Enterprise Agreement 2024-27. The matter was set for a conference on 25 October 2024, where a hearing date was set and directions were issued, requiring the parties to file and serve material supporting their positions. The Applicant was required to file and serve his material by 8 November 2024, and subsequently by 13 November 2024, but failed to do so. The Commission further informed the Applicant that failure to comply with directions may result in the dismissal of his application. Despite this, the Applicant did not respond to the Commission's correspondence and did not file any material, leading to the application being dismissed.

The primary legal issue for the Court was whether the Applicant's failure to comply with the Commission's directions justified the dismissal of his application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Court had to determine if the Applicant's non-compliance amounted to a failure to prosecute his application and if the dismissal was warranted. The Court also had to consider whether the Applicant's actions demonstrated a lack of intention to pursue the application, and if so, whether this justified the dismissal of the application.

The Court found that the Applicant had failed to comply with the directions of the Commission, despite being given additional time to file and serve his material. The Applicant did not respond to the Commission's correspondence and did not file any material by the extended deadline. The Court was satisfied that the Applicant had not demonstrated an intention to pursue his application and accordingly, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to section 587 of the Act. The Court held that the Applicant's failure to comply with directions and his lack of response to the Commission's correspondence justified the dismissal of the application.

The Court issued an order dismissing the Applicant's application. The dismissal was based on the Applicant's failure to comply with the Commission's directions and his lack of intention to pursue the application, as evidenced by his failure to file any material or respond to the Commission's correspondence. The Court's decision was in accordance with section 587 of the Act, which provides the Commission with the discretion to dismiss an application if it is not pursued.

Hugo Meagher v Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established