Jack Hill v J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 439

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jack Hill
v

J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd

(U2024/12860)

COMMISSIONER P RYAN

SYDNEY, 13 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – Applicant’s failure to engage with the Commission – application dismissed for want of prosecution

On 28 October 2024, Mr Jack Hill (Applicant) made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) (Application).

By the Application, the Applicant alleges he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 14 January 2025, the matter was allocated to my Chambers for determination.

On 15 January 2025, I issued Directions to the parties. Direction [2] of the Directions reads:
“[2] The Applicant (Mr Jack Hill) must file with the Fair Work Commission, and serve on the Respondent, by no later than 4.00pm on 7 February 2025:
a)All witness statements upon which they intend to rely in relation to the merits of their application and in opposition to the Respondent’s no dismissal jurisdictional objection; and
b)Any other documentary material upon which they intend to rely in relation to the merits of their application and in opposition to the Respondent’s no dismissal objection; and
c)An outline of submissions not exceeding 10 A4 pages in length in relation to their application for unfair dismissal remedy and in opposition to the Respondent’s no dismissal objection.”
The Applicant did not comply with Direction [2].

On 10 February 2025, the Applicant was directed to provide an explanation for his failure to comply with the Directions by 4:00pm on 11 February 2025. No response to that correspondence was received from the Applicant.

Legislative Provisions

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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal 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.”

The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the FW 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).

Consideration

The Applicant has taken no steps to prosecute the Application.

Accordingly, I have decided to dismiss the Application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the FW Act.

Disposition

The Application is dismissed. An Order to that effect will issue with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Jack Hill lodged an application for unfair dismissal against his employer, J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd, in the Fair Work Commission. He alleged that his dismissal was unjust. The Commission issued directions for the Applicant to submit witness statements, documentary evidence, and a written outline of his submissions by a specified date. The Applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not respond to subsequent requests for an explanation for his non-compliance. The matter was then brought before Commissioner Ryan to determine the appropriate course of action.

The legal issue at hand was whether the Commission had the authority to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, given the Applicant's failure to adhere to the Commission's directions. This issue hinged on the interpretation of section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which outlines circumstances under which an application may be dismissed. The Commissioner considered whether the Applicant's failure to prosecute his case warranted dismissal under the Act's provisions. The Commissioner determined that the Applicant's lack of engagement with the proceedings justified the dismissal of the application for want of prosecution.

The Commissioner found that the Applicant had not taken any steps to prosecute his application, despite clear directions from the Commission. Given the Applicant's non-compliance with the Commission's directions and his failure to provide any explanation or further submissions, the Commissioner concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commissioner exercised the discretion to dismiss the application under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009, stating that the Commission's jurisdiction to dismiss an application was not limited to the specific circumstances outlined in the Act. The application was dismissed, and an order to that effect was issued.

The Commission dismissed the Applicant's application for unfair dismissal for want of prosecution. The Commissioner issued an order dismissing the application, highlighting that the Applicant's failure to comply with the Commission's directions and provide any explanation or further submissions resulted in the dismissal.

Jack Hill v J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established