Jordan Spyro v RBP Group Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 944

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jordan Spyro
v

RBP Group Pty Ltd

(U2025/313)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 3 APRIL 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed.

On 9 January 2025, Mr Jordan Spyro made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) against RBP Group Pty Ltd.

RBP Group Pty Ltd was placed into liquidation on 4 February 2025. Section 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides as follows:

“After the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up, no action or other civil proceeding is to be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court imposes.”

On 19 February 2025 correspondence was sent to Mr Spyro about these matters and included the following invitation:

“Deputy President Easton is prepared to give you time to decide what to do about your application.
Could you please tell us by reply email by no later than 4:00pm on Friday 28 February 2025:
- that you have made an application to a Court for leave/permission to continue your claim; OR
- that you want to discontinue your unfair dismissal application.”

No response was received.

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]).

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.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

To date Mr Spyro has not provided a response regarding the continuation of his application or taken any steps to pursue his claim.

For several weeks Mr Spyro has been on notice of a significant obstacle that most likely prevents him from continuing his case – being the operation s.500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Instead of discontinuing his application or mounting an argument as to how his claim can lawfully continue.

In these circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Spyro’s application for want of prosecution, and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Jordan Spyro on 9 January 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Mr Jordan Spyro brought an unfair dismissal claim against RBP Group Pty Ltd. The respondent company was placed into liquidation on 4 February 2025, which created a significant obstacle for Mr Spyro's claim. He did not respond to correspondence from the Commission about the liquidation and its implications for his case. Consequently, on 3 April 2025, Deputy President Easton dismissed the application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dismissal was based on the applicant's failure to pursue the matter and the unlikelihood of the application succeeding given the liquidation of the respondent.

The court had to determine whether Mr Spyro was still willing to prosecute his claim and if there were reasonable prospects of success given the liquidation of the respondent. The Fair Work Commission noted that Mr Spyro had not taken any steps to continue the case or seek permission to do so. The Commission considered its powers under s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to dismiss applications that had no reasonable prospects of success or were not being pursued. The court concluded that Mr Spyro's inaction showed a lack of willingness to proceed, and the liquidation of the respondent meant there was no reasonable prospect of success.

Deputy President Easton dismissed Mr Spyro's unfair dismissal application for want of prosecution. The court found that Mr Spyro had not responded to the Commission's correspondence about the liquidation and had not shown any intention to continue the case. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success given the liquidation of the respondent. The dismissal was made under s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which allows the Commission to dismiss applications that are not being pursued or have no reasonable prospects of success. The court made an order dismissing Mr Spyro's application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established