Katie Loadsman v Trieste Global Summary

[2022] FWC 2897

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Katie Loadsman
v

Trieste Global

(U2022/6964)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 31 OCTOBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Katie Loadsman (the applicant) was employed by Trieste Global (the respondent) from the 22^nd of September 2021 until she was dismissed on the 27^th of June 2022.

On the 8^th of July 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Delta Site Solutions Pty Ltd.
On the 14^th of September 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 21^st of September 2022. No response was received at this time.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

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.

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

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Katie Loadsman sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against Trieste Global, who had dismissed her from employment. Loadsman's application for a remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 was made on 8 July 2022, following her dismissal on 27 June 2022. The respondent had initially responded using the legal business name Delta Site Solutions Pty Ltd. On 14 September 2022, the applicant was required to respond to correspondence regarding the discrepancy in the legal business name by 21 September 2022. However, no response was received from Loadsman, and she has not responded to any further correspondence from the Commission.

The legal issue before Vice President Catanzariti was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to dismiss Loadsman's application for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The provision allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. Vice President Catanzariti found that the words "Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application" in section 587(1) of the Act establish that the Commission's jurisdiction to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in section 587(1)(a), (b), and (c).

Vice President Catanzariti decided to dismiss Loadsman's application for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act, given the lack of response to correspondence and the failure to address the legal business name discrepancy. The decision was made on the Commission's own initiative. An order dismissing the application will issue with this decision.

Katie Loadsman v Trieste Global

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established