| [2023] FWC 2360 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Jahni Kemp
v
Globes On Demand Pty Ltd
(U2023/6793)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
Jahni Kemp (the applicant) began employment with Globes on Demand Pty Ltd (the respondent) on the 1st of September 2021.
On the 25th of July 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Globes on Demand.
On the 30th of August 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 6th of September 2023. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 7th of September 2023. He was required to respond to this correspondence by 5:00pm the 12th of September 2023. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his matter would be dismissed without further notice, should my chambers not receive a response.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the 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
<PR766210>
- AGLC
- Jahni Kemp v Globes on Demand Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 2360
- Case
- [2023] FWC 2360
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Vice President was whether the application could be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Vice President examined section 587 of the Act and concluded 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 decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Act.
The Vice President found that the application could be dismissed for want of prosecution as Jahni Kemp did not respond to correspondence sent by the Commission. The Vice President also found that the application did not meet the requirements of the Act, as the respondent did not respond to the application. The Vice President concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success.
An order to dismiss the application for want of prosecution will issue with this decision.
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.