Jessica Seymour v Reflections Holiday Park Summary

[2025] FWC 2713

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jessica Seymour
v

Reflections Holiday Park

(U2025/5502)

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 2 May 2025, Ms Jessica Seymour made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Seymour did not attend a telephone conciliation conference scheduled for 30 May 2025.

Commission staff tried to contact Ms Seymour on 30 May and 26 June 2025 about whether she wants to continue her unfair dismissal claim. Ms Seymour 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 Ms Seymour 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 Ms Seymour’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Jessica Seymour on 2 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard a case brought by Jessica Seymour against Reflections Holiday Park, regarding an unfair dismissal claim. Ms Seymour filed the application on 2 May 2025 under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a remedy for her dismissal. Despite being scheduled for a conciliation conference on 30 May 2025, Ms Seymour did not attend, and subsequent attempts to contact her on 30 May and 26 June 2025 to discuss the continuation of her case went unanswered.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether Ms Seymour's failure to engage with the proceedings constituted a lack of prosecution warranting dismissal of her application under section 587 of the Act. This section allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative if the applicant's conduct indicates they are no longer interested in pursuing the case. The court had to determine whether Ms Seymour's inaction and lack of response to inquiries demonstrated a lack of willingness to continue with her unfair dismissal claim.

Deputy President Easton concluded that Ms Seymour had sufficient opportunity to present her case and had not demonstrated any interest in pursuing the matter. The court found that Ms Seymour's failure to respond to the Commission's inquiries and her non-attendance at the scheduled conciliation conference indicated she was no longer willing to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, the court decided to dismiss the application under section 587 for want of prosecution.

The court ordered that the application made by Ms Jessica Seymour under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 2 May 2025 be dismissed. This decision effectively concludes the proceedings in relation to Ms Seymour's unfair dismissal claim against Reflections Holiday Park.

Jessica Seymour v Reflections Holiday Park

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established