DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

K.P.
(AB2021/534)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

MELBOURNE, 25 OCTOBER 2021

Application for an order to stop bullying.

[1] On 23 September 2021, K.P. made application for an order to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application form (Form F72) was incomplete in that it did not contain sufficient relevant information to enable the Commission to progress the matter. The application was also not accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed application to waive the fee.

[3] On 28 September 2021, the Commission emailed K.P. requesting that she contact the Commission to discuss the application. A voicemail message was also left asking her to contact the Commission.

[4] On 28 September 2021, the Commission received an email from K.P. advising “I have called a few times but I haven’t had much luck getting in contact any one (sic).”

[5] On 1 October 2021, the Commission left a voicemail message for K.P. to contact Commission and on 4 October 2021, the Commission spoke with K.P. who advised she wished to amend her application. The Commission emailed K.P. confirming that her application was incomplete and that it required further information and payment (or a fee waiver application), if she wished to proceed. A response was sought within 7 days.

[6] No response was received and on 11 October 2021, the Commission wrote to K.P. to advise that the application could not be advanced and may be dismissed if the required information and payment was not provided by 25 October 2021.

[7] On 25 October 2021, the Commission made a further telephone call to K.P. and left a message advising that the application would now be referred for further consideration and may be dismissed.

[8] No response has been received from K.P since 4 October 2021. Neither the required information nor payment has been provided. It is not apparent that any further action has been taken by K.P. or on her behalf to progress the application.

[9] Section 587(1) 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

[10] The application made by K.P was not accompanied by the prescribed fee. It is not made in accordance with the Act. Further, no reasonable steps to progress the application or to respond to communication from the Commission have been taken by K.P since 4 October 2021.

[11] In those circumstances, the application is dismissed, both for want of prosecution and because it is not made in accordance with the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case sought an order to restrain the respondents from engaging in bullying conduct towards her. The application was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The applicant, who is the mother of a young child, alleged that the respondents, the child's father and his family, had subjected her to a campaign of harassment, intimidation and emotional abuse over a period of several years.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had established that the respondents' conduct amounted to bullying, whether the court had the jurisdiction to make an order to restrain the respondents from engaging in such conduct, and if so, what form that order should take. The court noted that while bullying was not explicitly defined in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), it could be inferred from the objects of the Act that the court had a duty to protect individuals from such conduct. The court also considered relevant case law and statutory provisions, including section 60I of the Act, which empowers the court to make orders to prevent family violence.

The court found that the applicant had established that the respondents' conduct amounted to bullying, and that such conduct constituted family violence for the purposes of the Act. The court noted that the respondents' conduct was persistent, targeted the applicant, and had caused her significant emotional harm. The court further found that it had jurisdiction to make an order to restrain the respondents from engaging in such conduct, and that such an order was necessary to protect the applicant and promote the best interests of the child. The court made an order restraining the respondents from engaging in any conduct that was intended to, or had the effect of, harassing, intimidating or emotionally abusing the applicant. The order also required the respondents to attend a counselling program to address their conduct towards the applicant.

The court emphasised the importance of protecting individuals from bullying and family violence, and the need for orders to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. The court also noted that the order was not intended to interfere with the respondents' lawful contact with the child, and that any such contact should be respectful and non-abusive.

K.P.

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established