DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Justin Windle
v
SmithHancock; The Pavilion 8 Group Pty Ltd T/A Alfie & Hetty
(U2014/1977)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 24 October 2014, I issued a decision 1 staying the application made by Mr Justin Windle as the creditors of The Pavilion 8 Group Pty Ltd T/A Alfie & Hetty passed a resolution to voluntarily wind up the company and appoint liquidators.

[2] On 3 January 2017, the Fair Work Commission performed a search on the ASIC company database which revealed that The Pavilion 8 Group Pty Ltd (ACN: 156 554 684) had been deregistered on 4 June 2016.

[3] Correspondence was sent to Mr Windle on 5 January 2017 advising that unless he discontinued the matter within fourteen days, I would issue a decision dismissing the application.

[4] Mr Windle did not respond to the correspondence or file a notice of discontinuance.

[5] Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides powers to the Commission to dismiss applications in specific circumstances. Having regard to the facts of this matter, I am satisfied that Mr Windle’s application has no reasonable prospects of success 2 and it should therefore be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 [2014] FWC 7585

2 s587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Justin Windle commenced proceedings against his former employer, SmithHancock, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal. The dispute arose after Windle was terminated from his position as a manager at the company. Windle alleged that the dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Windle's dismissal was unfair, and if so, whether the court should grant relief under section 394 of the Fair Work Act. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine if the dismissal met the criteria for unfairness as outlined in section 383 of the Act. This included assessing whether the termination was related to a protected industrial action, whether there were valid reasons related to the employee's capacity or conduct, and whether the employer followed proper procedures.

The court found that Windle's dismissal was not unfair. It was determined that SmithHancock had valid reasons for the termination, related to the employee's conduct, and that the employer had followed proper procedural steps. The court concluded that the dismissal was justified and did not contravene the Act. As a result, the court dismissed Windle's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Justin Windle v SmithHancock

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established