Jayde Gower v Log on No. 2 Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2723

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jayde Gower
v

Log On No. 2 Pty Ltd

(U2025/6015)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2025

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

On 15 May 2025, Mr Jayde Gower made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The information provided in Mr Gower’s application raised a concern about whether the application was filed within the 21 day time limit.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr Gower on 10 June and 2 July 2025 about this concern. Mr Gower has not responded to the Commission’s inquiries.

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 Gower 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 Gower’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Jayde Gower on 15 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to consider an unfair dismissal application brought by Jayde Gower against Log on No. 2 Pty Ltd. The application, made on 15 May 2025, was subject to scrutiny due to concerns about whether it was filed within the required 21-day period. The Commission attempted to contact Mr Gower on 10 June and 2 July 2025 to discuss the issue, but he did not respond. This lack of engagement raised questions about whether Mr Gower was still willing to pursue his case.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This provision allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it determines that the applicant is no longer willing to participate in the proceedings. The precedent set in Viavattene v Health Care Australia indicates that the Commission is not obligated to continue with an application if the applicant's conduct or omissions suggest a lack of interest in pursuing the case.

The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Easton, concluded that Mr Gower had ample opportunity to present his case but failed to engage with the Commission's inquiries. Given this inaction, the Deputy President found that Mr Gower was no longer willing to pursue his application. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The order made by the Deputy President was that the unfair dismissal application filed by Mr Jayde Gower on 15 May 2025 be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established