Jason Mullie-Locke v Polar Bear HVAC Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 2704

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jason Mullie-Locke
v

Polar Bear HVAC Services Pty Ltd

(U2025/4974)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 22 April 2025 Mr Jason Mullie-Locke made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Mullie-Locke’s application raised a concern about whether he had in fact been dismissed and if he had, the date that the dismissal took effect.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr Mullie-Locke on 8 May, 23 May, 26 June and 4 September 2025 about his application. Mr Mullie-Locke has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence or calls.

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings for want of prosecution. 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]).

I am satisfied that Mr Mullie-Locke has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Mullie-Locke’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Jason Mullie-Locke on 22 April 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jason Mullie-Locke lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission on 22 April 2025, under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was dismissed under section 587 for want of prosecution, as Mr Mullie-Locke failed to respond to multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact him regarding his application. The case was heard by Deputy President Easton, who found that the facility under section 587 could and should be engaged to dismiss the application.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Mullie-Locke had indeed been dismissed and, if so, the effective date of the dismissal. The court considered the lack of response from Mr Mullie-Locke to the Commission’s correspondence and calls, and found that his conduct demonstrated a lack of willingness to participate in his own case. The court noted that if an applicant’s conduct or omissions show they are no longer willing to participate in their own case, the Commission is not required to persevere with the application.

Deputy President Easton concluded that Mr Mullie-Locke had been given sufficient opportunity to present his case and, given his failure to respond, the application could be dismissed under section 587. The court found that it was appropriate to engage the facility provided by the section, and accordingly dismissed the application. The court made an order that the application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 made by Mr Jason Mullie-Locke on 22 April 2025 is dismissed.

Jason Mullie-Locke v Polar Bear HVAC Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established