Jeffrey Busch v Webcentral Limited

Case [2023] FWC 1116


[2023] FWC 1116

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jeffrey Busch
v

Webcentral Limited

(U2023/1723)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 MAY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Jeffrey Busch (the applicant) was employed by Webcentral Limited (the respondent) from the 18th of September 2020 until he was dismissed on the 10th of February 2023.

  1. On the 3rd of March 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  2. The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Netregistry Pty Ltd.

  3. On the 17th of April 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 24th of April 2023. No response was received at this time.

  4. Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 26th of April 2023 and he was required to respond by 5:00pm the 1st of May 2023. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  5. To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

  1. 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.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

  1. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR761809>

Details
AGLC
Jeffrey Busch v Webcentral Limited [2023] FWC 1116
Case
[2023] FWC 1116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeffrey Busch, the applicant, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against Webcentral Limited, the respondent, under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant was employed by the respondent from September 2020 until his dismissal in February 2023. On March 3, 2023, the applicant lodged an application for unfair dismissal, which was initially addressed to Netregistry Pty Ltd, the respondent's legal business name. Correspondence was sent to the applicant on April 17 and April 26, 2023, requiring a response by April 24 and May 1, respectively. The latter correspondence warned that the application would be dismissed without notice if no response was received. The applicant did not respond to any correspondence.

The court considered whether it could dismiss the application under s.587 of the Act, which allows for dismissal if the application is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The court noted that s.587(1) of the Act does not limit the circumstances under which the Fair Work Commission (FWC) may dismiss an application. The court found that the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence from the court warranted dismissal of the application for want of prosecution under s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

The court dismissed the application for unfair dismissal for want of prosecution. The decision was made in accordance with s.587(3)(a) of the Act, which allows the FWC to dismiss an application on its own initiative. The court found that the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence sent by the court justified dismissal of the application. An order to that effect was issued with the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.