Jacob Levi Sturmey-Wright v Karl & Teena Jennings & Kory Jennings

[2022] FWC 1249

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jacob Levi Sturmey-Wright
v

Karl & Teena Jennings & Kory Jennings

(U2021/11775)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 20 MAY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Jacob Levi Sturmey-Wright was employed by Karl & Teena Jennings & Kory Jennings from the 7^th of June 2021 until they were dismissed on the 25^th of November 2021.

On the 16^th of December 2021, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

A conciliation was scheduled on the 25^th of February 2022 and parties did not reach settlement at this conciliation. The matter was then allocated to my Chambers.
On the 1^st of April, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to a jurisdictional objection raised by Karl & Teena Jennings & Kory Jennings. Jacob Levi Sturmey-Wright was required to respond by the 8^th of April 2022.
On the 11^th of April 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing them to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 14^th of April 2022. They were advised that in the absence of a reply their application may be dismissed.

To date, Jacob Levi Sturmey-Wright has not responded to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent or any further correspondence sent by my Chambers.

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

The applicant, Jacob Levi Sturmey-Wright, applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an unfair dismissal remedy against his former employers, Karl and Teena Jennings and Kory Jennings. The applicant alleged that he was dismissed without just cause or reason. The respondent raised jurisdictional objections to the application and subsequently sought its dismissal due to the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence. The Vice President of the FWC dismissed the application for want of prosecution.

The legal issue before the Vice President was whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence and objections raised by the respondent. The Vice President considered the provisions of section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides that the FWC may dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Vice President found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act as the applicant had failed to respond to correspondence and objections raised by the respondent.

The Vice President dismissed the application for want of prosecution pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The Vice President found that the words "without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application" at the commencement of section 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 section 587(1)(a), (b) and (c). The Vice President noted that the applicant had failed to respond to correspondence and objections raised by the respondent, and that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established