Jason Reardon v Regeonal Quarries Australia Summary

[2025] FWC 553

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jason Reardon
v

Regeonal Quarries Australia

(U2024/13911)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 21 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 21 November 2024, Mr Jason Reardon made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

On 10 December 2024, Commission staff were advised that the parties had reached an in-principle agreement to resolve Mr Reardon’s application.

Since then Mr Reardon has not discontinued his application or taken any steps to prosecute his case.

Commission staff sent correspondence and messages to Mr Reardon on 8 January 2024, 9 January 2024 and 29 January 2025 about the unfair dismissal application. Mr Reardon has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

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 Reardon has been on notice that their application could be dismissed under s.587, and that he had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the making of the decision to dismiss the application.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Reardon’s application.

I have therefore decided to make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Jason Reardon on 21 November 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jason Reardon v Regeonal Quarries Australia was brought before the Fair Work Commission, where the applicant, Mr Jason Reardon, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Reardon had initially lodged an application for unfair dismissal against his former employer, Regeonal Quarries Australia, on 21 November 2024. Despite a reported in-principle agreement between the parties on 10 December 2024, Mr Reardon did not proceed to discontinue his application or take any steps to prosecute it. The Commission subsequently sent multiple communications to Mr Reardon to urge him to prosecute his case, but he failed to respond. This led to the Commission considering dismissal of the application for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether Mr Reardon's failure to prosecute his application warranted dismissal under section 587. The Deputy President considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law, notably Viavattene v Health Care Australia, which established that the Commission may dismiss an application if the applicant's conduct or omissions demonstrate a lack of willingness to participate in their own case. Given Mr Reardon's inaction and unresponsiveness to the Commission's communications, the Deputy President concluded that he had ample opportunity to present his case but chose not to do so.

Based on the evidence and the statutory framework, the Deputy President determined that Mr Reardon's failure to prosecute his application justified dismissal under section 587. The decision reflected a balanced approach, considering both the procedural requirements and the applicant's responsibilities. Consequently, the Deputy President dismissed Mr Reardon's application for unfair dismissal.

The Deputy President made an order dismissing the application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) brought by Mr Jason Reardon on 21 November 2024.

Jason Reardon v Regeonal Quarries Australia

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established