Joanne Grace Canin v Lateral Plains Events Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 939

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Joanne Grace Canin
v

Lateral Plains Events Pty Ltd

(U2025/215)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 3 APRIL 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 7 January 2025, Ms Joanne Grace Canin made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Canin’s application raised a concern about whether her application was filed within the 21-day time limit.

Commission staff tried to contact Ms Canin on 6 February and 18 February 2025 by email and SMS about this concern. Ms Canin has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

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

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Joanne Grace Canin on 7 January 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joanne Grace Canin sought to challenge her dismissal from Lateral Plains Events Pty Ltd by applying to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application raised questions about whether it was lodged within the required 21-day period. The FWC, specifically Deputy President Easton, was tasked with determining whether the application should be dismissed under section 587 for want of prosecution. The main issue for the court was whether Ms Canin's failure to respond to communications from the FWC indicated she was no longer willing to pursue her application.

The legal issue before the court was whether Ms Canin's non-responsiveness to correspondence from the FWC indicated a lack of willingness to pursue her unfair dismissal claim, warranting dismissal of the application under section 587. The court examined the statutory provision allowing the FWC to dismiss an application for want of prosecution and the relevant case law, notably Viavattene v Health Care Australia, which established that if an applicant's conduct or omissions show a lack of willingness to participate in their own case, the FWC is not required to continue with the application. The court found that Ms Canin had been given ample opportunity to address the issues and had not responded to the FWC's attempts to contact her.

After considering the statutory authority and the relevant case law, Deputy President Easton concluded that Ms Canin's failure to respond to the FWC's attempts to contact her indicated she was no longer willing to pursue her application. Given the clear statutory provisions and the case law precedent, Deputy President Easton was satisfied that the application should be dismissed under section 587. The court ordered that the application made by Ms Canin on 7 January 2025 be dismissed, effectively ending her attempt to challenge her dismissal through the FWC.

Joanne Grace Canin v Lateral Plains Events Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established