Jean-Louise Cook v Stephanie Ridge Muir

[2024] FWC 2017

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Jean-Louise Cook
v

Stephanie Ridge Muir

(C2024/4110)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 30 JULY 2024

General protections application – application dismissed

This decision relates to a general protections application by Ms Jean-Louise Cook (Applicant) pursuant to s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) against her employer, Stephanie Ridge Muir (Respondent).

The Applicant contends that she was dismissed by the Respondent on 1 June 2024 in contravention of the general protections provisions of the Act. The Respondent objected to the application on the basis that the Applicant was not dismissed.

I listed the matter for directions, by telephone at midday on 16 July 2024 to make directions in relation to the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection to the application. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant at the directions hearing.

Later, on 16 July 2024, the Applicant was informed that the matter had been listed for a further directions hearing, by telephone, at 9am on 24 July 2024, and if the Applicant did not attend that directions hearing the matter may be dismissed without further prior notice to the Applicant. On 23 July 2024, my Associate attempted, without success, to contact the Applicant by telephone. A message was left for the Applicant to contact my chambers. She did not do so.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant at the directions hearing on 24 July 2024, nor has the Applicant communicated with the Fair Work Commission since that directions hearing.

For the reasons set out above and the failure on the part of the Applicant to take any steps to prosecute her general protections application, I have decided to exercise my discretion pursuant to s 587(1) of the Act to dismiss the Applicant’s general protections application against the Respondent in these proceedings. The Applicant’s general protections application is therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered a general protections application filed by Jean-Louise Cook against her employer, Stephanie Ridge Muir, under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Cook alleged that she was dismissed by Ms Muir on 1 June 2024 in contravention of the Act's general protections provisions. The employer contested the application, asserting that Ms Cook had not been dismissed. The matter was scheduled for a directions hearing to address the employer's jurisdictional objection, but Ms Cook failed to appear or communicate with the Commission on two separate occasions. Consequently, the Commission exercised its discretion under section 587(1) of the Act to dismiss Ms Cook's application for lack of prosecution.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Ms Cook's application should proceed given her failure to participate in the scheduled hearings or communicate with the Commission. The employer argued that the application should be dismissed due to Ms Cook's inaction, while Ms Cook did not appear or present any arguments. The Commission had to determine if Ms Cook's repeated absences and lack of communication constituted sufficient grounds for dismissing the application under section 587(1) of the Act.

In reaching its decision, the Commission noted that Ms Cook did not attend either of the scheduled directions hearings despite receiving multiple notices. Additionally, there was no communication from Ms Cook to the Commission or her legal representative. The Commission concluded that Ms Cook's failure to participate in the proceedings or communicate with the Commission warranted the dismissal of her application. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as Ms Cook had not taken any steps to prosecute her claim.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the dismissal of Ms Jean-Louise Cook's general protections application against Stephanie Ridge Muir. The decision was based on Ms Cook's failure to appear at the scheduled directions hearings and her subsequent lack of communication with the Commission. The Commission found that her inaction justified the exercise of its discretion under section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to dismiss the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established