James Thoranine v Maneto Pty. Limited
[2025] FWC 459
•14 FEBRUARY 2025
| [2025] FWC 459 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION and ORDER |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
James Thoranine
v
Maneto Pty. Limited
(U2024/11984)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON | SYDNEY, 14 FEBRUARY 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) for want of prosecution.
On 7 October 2024, Mr James Thoranine filed an unfair dismissal application in the Fair Work Commission. In his application Mr Thoranine said that “Maneto Pty. Limited” was his former employer. A Form F3 response was received and that response indicated that the legal name of the former employer is Able Kitchens Pty Ltd.
On 27 November 2024 Commissions staff sent correspondence to Mr Thoranine regarding the legal name of his former employer.
Mr Thoranine was asked to provide a response by 4 December 2024. Mr Thoranine did not respond to this correspondence. To date, Mr Thoranine has not responded to any of the Commission’s attempts to contact him.
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.
…
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.”
Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is apparent that the applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings they commenced. Section 587(3) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness. The words “without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” in s.587(1) confirm that the power to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).
If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).
In these circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Thoranine’s application. The Commission’s query about the legal name of the respondent was administrative and should have been resolved very quickly to allow Mr Thoranine’s claim to progress.
Mr Thoranine has been on notice of the likely consequences for his application if he did not respond to the Commission’s inquiry.
I have decided to dismiss Mr Thoranine’s application on my own initiative for want of prosecution, utilising the facility provided by s.587(3)(a) of the Act, and make the following order:
1.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr James Thoranine on 7 October 2024 is dismissed
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR784405>
0