Julija Susnjara v Alex & Co Parramatta Pty Limited

Case [2023] FWC 3072


[2023] FWC 3072

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Julija Susnjara
v

Alex & Co Parramatta Pty Limited

(U2023/6339)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE

SYDNEY, 23 NOVEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – failure to comply with Directions – Application dismissed

Overview

  1. On 13 July 2023, Ms Julija Susnjara (Applicant) filed an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) with the Fair Work Commission (Commission), being an application for an unfair dismissal remedy (Application). The Respondent to the Application is the Alex & Co Parramatta Pty Limited.

  1. Direction [2] of the Directions issued on 7 November 2023 reads:

“[2] By 4.00pm AEDT on Tuesday, 21 November 2023, the Applicant must file with the Commission and serve upon the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in support of their application.”

  1. The Applicant did not comply with Direction [2].

  1. On 22 November 2023, at 9:10am AEDT, the following email (Show Cause Email) was sent to the Applicant:

“Dear Ms Susnjara

Re: U2023/6339 - Julija Susnjara v Alex & Co Parramatta Pty Limited

I refer to the matter above.

Background

On 7 November 2023, the Fair Work Commission issued Directions in this matter.

Order [2] of those directions read as follows:

[2]          By 4.00pm AEDT on Tuesday, 21 November 2023, the Applicant must file with the Commission and serve upon the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in support of their application.

To date, Chambers has not received any materials in compliance with Order [2].

Further directions regarding show cause

In view of the foregoing, the Deputy President directs as follows:

[1]          The Applicant is to file with the Commission, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions regarding their non-compliance with directions. Further, the Applicant is to make submissions as to why this matter should not be dismissed. The Applicant is to comply with this Direction by no later than 4:00pm AEDT Today, 22 November 2023.

[2]          If the Applicant does not comply with Order [1] above, or if the Deputy President is not satisfied by the Applicant’s submissions, the matter may be dismissed without further notice.

Yours faithfully 

[Associate]”

  1. The Applicant has made no response to the Show Cause Email.

Legislative Provisions

  1. Section 587 of the Act reads:

“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.”

  1. In Rebecca Tomas v Symbian Health [2011] FWA 5458, Commissioner Gooley stated the following with respect to the operation of s.587 of the Act:

“[57] Section 587 gives [the Fair Work Commission] the power to dismiss a matter. Section 587(a), (b) and do not limit [the Fair Work Commission’s] power to dismiss matters for other reasons.”

Consideration

  1. As the Applicant has made no attempt to comply with Direction [2] and/or the Show Cause Email, and has failed to contact the Commission or otherwise explain their non-compliance, I have decided to dismiss their Application.

  1. In dismissing the Applicant’s Application, I find that the Applicant’s non-compliance with Direction [2] and the Show Cause Email to be wholly unexplained, and wholly unsatisfactory.

  1. Pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act, the Application is dismissed for want of prosecution. An Order dismissing the Application will be published contemporaneously with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR768563>

Details
AGLC
Julija Susnjara v Alex & Co Parramatta Pty Limited [2023] FWC 3072
Case
[2023] FWC 3072
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Julija Susnjara, the applicant, filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against Alex & Co Parramatta Pty Limited. The matter was brought before Deputy President Boyce on 23 November 2023. The application arose from Ms Susnjara's claim that her dismissal by Alex & Co Parramatta Pty Limited was unfair. However, the proceedings were dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with specific directions issued by the Commission.

The central legal issue before Deputy President Boyce was whether the application could proceed given the applicant's non-compliance with the directions issued by the Fair Work Commission. Direction [2] required the applicant to file an outline of submissions, witness statements, and supporting documents by a specified deadline. Despite being notified via a Show Cause Email, the applicant did not comply with this direction nor respond to the email. The Commission had to determine if the application should be dismissed due to this non-compliance.

Deputy President Boyce reviewed the legislative provisions under Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which empowers the Commission to dismiss applications if they are not made in accordance with the Act, are frivolous or vexatious, or lack reasonable prospects of success. In this case, the applicant's complete failure to comply with the directions, coupled with the lack of any response to the Show Cause Email, led Deputy President Boyce to conclude that the application was not being prosecuted diligently. The decision cited the case of Rebecca Tomas v Symbian Health [2011] FWA 5458, which reinforced the Commission's broad power to dismiss applications for reasons beyond those specified in Section 587. Consequently, Deputy President Boyce dismissed the application for want of prosecution under Section 587(3)(a) of the Act. An order dismissing the application was issued in tandem with this decision.

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.