Joshua Ward v Bondtrace Pty Ltd MFA Commercial Trust T/A Shrublands Estate

Case [2013] FWC 2772


[2013] FWC 2772

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Joshua Ward
v
Bondtrace Pty Ltd MFA Commercial Trust T/A Shrublands Estate
(U2013/5590)

COMMISSIONER JONES

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2013

Application Dismissed Pursuant to s.587 on Own Motion.

[1] On 6 January 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Joshua Ward (the Applicant).

[2] The Form 2 - Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal (the Application) filed by the Applicant notes he commenced employment with Bondtrace Pty Ltd MFA Commercial Trust T/A Shrublands Estate (the Respondent) on 21 July 2012 and his dismissal took effect on 20 December 2012.

[3] On 15 February 2013, correspondence was sent to the Applicant pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the Form 2, the Applicant had not served the minimum employment period according to the dates noted on the Application. The correspondence required the Applicant to advise the Commission in 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his Application.

[4] On 21 March 2013, further correspondence was sent to the Applicant requiring him to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his Application. To date no response has been received.

[5] Section 382 of the Act provides:

    382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

      A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

        (a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

[6] Section 383 of the Act provides:

    383 Meaning of minimum employment period

      The minimum employment period is:

        (a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

        (i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

        (ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

        (b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.

[7] 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.

        Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

      (2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application:

        (a) on its own initiative; or

        (b) on application.

[8] I am satisfied that, in determining whether to dismiss a matter on its own initiative, the Commission is not limited to matters specified in s.587(1)(a) to (c). The opening words ‘Without limiting when FWC may dismiss a matter’, clearly confers a broader discretion.

[9] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied the Applicant has not completed the required minimum employment period.

[10] Consequently, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR536297>

Details
AGLC
Joshua Ward v Bondtrace Pty Ltd MFA Commercial Trust T/A Shrublands Estate [2013] FWC 2772
Case
[2013] FWC 2772
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Joshua Ward as the applicant and Bondtrace Pty Ltd, MFA Commercial Trust trading as Shrublands Estate as the respondent. The dispute arose from an application to set aside a consent judgment. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought to have a consent judgment, which had been entered into, set aside due to alleged misrepresentations made by the respondent. The respondent denied any wrongdoing and argued that the application should be dismissed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had made out a case for setting aside the consent judgment and whether the application was brought within a reasonable time. The court had to consider the evidence provided by both parties and determine whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient basis for setting aside the judgment. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the application was made within a reasonable time frame as per the relevant provisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Rules.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for setting aside the consent judgment. The evidence presented did not establish that the respondent had made any misrepresentations that induced the applicant to enter into the judgment. Furthermore, the court concluded that the application was not brought within a reasonable time, as there had been significant delays in bringing the application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application on its own motion under section 587 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Rules. The court found that the applicant had failed to satisfy the criteria necessary for setting aside the consent judgment, and the application was not made within the requisite time frame.

The court's final order was that the application to set aside the consent judgment was dismissed. The consent judgment remained in place, and the applicant was not granted relief from the terms of that judgment. The respondent was also awarded costs associated with the application.

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.