Jennifer Browne v Cape York Land Council
[2025] FWC 1851
•30 JUNE 2025
| [2025] FWC 1851 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.773—Termination of employment
Jennifer Browne
v
Cape York Land Council
(C2025/3127)
| COMMISSIONER SIMPSON | BRISBANE, 30 JUNE 2025 |
Application to deal with an unlawful termination dispute – multiple applications issue raised - Applicant did not engage – application dismissed.
Ms Jennifer Browne (the Applicant) was employed by Cape York Land Council (the Respondent) until she was dismissed in November 2024. On 17 April 2025, the Applicant filed an application to deal with an unlawful termination dispute under s.773 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).
The Applicant also lodged a general protections application under s.365 of the Act on 9 November 2024. This application was allocated to my Chambers to determine the multiple applications issue and the out of time issue for the s.773 application.
On 13 June 2025, my Chambers sent an email to the Applicant notifying her of the multiple applications issue and asking her how she would like to proceed. The email stated:
“Dear Ms Browne
It appears that you have made two applications against Cape York Land Council/ Cape York Land Council Aboriginal Corporation in relation to the same dismissal:
·C2024/8070 – a general protections claim involving dismissal filed at 3:57pm on 9 November 2025 (the First Application);
·C2025/3127 – an unlawful termination dispute claim filed at 11:17am on 17 April 2025 (the Second Application)
The First Application was referred to Deputy President Butler, who issued a Certificate on 22 April 2025.
The Second Application has now been referred to Commissioner Simpson who is required to deal with the multiple application issue.
It is noted that in this application you stated you lodged this application because you became aware that you applied under an incorrect provision. However not withstanding this, the below information applies:
Section 725 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) prohibits the making of multiple applications in relation to the same dismissal. Specifically, a second application must not be made in relation to the same dismissal if the first application had not concluded at the time the second application was made. There is more information about multiple applications in the General Benchbook (click here for more information).
Your Second Application cannot continue because of s.725 of the Act. Importantly, your Second Application cannot continue even if the First Application is discontinued or concluded because s.725 applies to the time that the Second Application was made.
This means that:
·the Second Application, being an unlawful termination dispute, cannot continue. Please consider discontinuing your Second Application;
·you could have chosen to continue your First Application by bringing that application to Court (assuming that you applied to the Federal Court of Australia/Federal Circuit Court of Australia within 14 days of the certificate being issued); and
·if you want to pursue an unlawful termination dispute, you should consider discontinuing BOTH the First and Second Application and then file a Third Application, being a fresh unlawful termination dispute application. A 21-day time limit applies to unlawful termination applications and you might need to apply for an extension of time to lodge the Third Application.
In this regard please see the earlier Full Bench decision in Ioannou v Northern Belting Services Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 6660 at paragraphs [30]-[31].
If you contend that there is a legal basis by which the Second Application can continue, then please respond to this email explaining in brief terms why this is the case.
If you do not decide to discontinue the Second Application, and you do not provide a reasonable legal basis to show that the Second Application can continue, Commissioner Simpson will consider dismissing the Second Application under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.
Section 587(1)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss applications without the need for a protracted hearing if the application was not made in accordance with the Act.
Commissioner Simpson is prepared to give you time to decide what to do about your two applications.
Please tell us by reply email by no later than 4:00pm on Friday, 20 June 2025:
·that you want to discontinue your Second Application and you have continued your First Application; OR
·that you want to discontinue both your First Application and your Second Application; OR
·any submission you would like to make about the legal basis upon which the Second Application can continue; AND/OR
·any submission you would like to make as to why the Commissioner should not dismiss the Second Application under s.587(1)(a).”
On 24 June 2025, my Chambers followed up on a response from the Applicant and put her on notice that I was considering dismissing her application under s.587 if she did not respond. A text message was also sent to the Applicant’s provided mobile phone number alerting her that an email had been sent by my Chambers. The email read:
“Dear Ms Browne
The Commissioner notes that we have not had a response to the 13 June 2025 email below.
The Commissioner provides a further final opportunity to provide a response by 5:00pm AEST Friday 27 June 2025.
If you do not respond by 5:00pm AEST Friday, 27 June 2025, the Commissioner will consider dismissing the application for want of prosecution.”
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), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365, 536LU or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.”
Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is apparent that the Applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings they commenced. Section 587(3) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative, so long as the Applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.
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 on the basis of the evidence before me that the facility under s.587(1)(a) can and should be engaged to dismiss the Applicant’s application due to it not being made in accordance with the Act. The Commission’s correspondence regarding the Applicant’s applications provided case law and resources for the Applicant to inform herself on the issues. The Applicant does not appear to have accessed the resources or has not informed the Commission of her intention regarding the applications.
The Applicant has also been on notice of the likely consequences for her application if she did not respond to the Commission’s inquiry and it is quite possible that she has abandoned her application.
On that basis, I have decided to dismiss Ms Browne’s unlawful termination application and make the following order:
1.
The application under s.773 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Browne on 17 April 2025 is dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR788697>
0