[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>
- 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 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.