Khan Rashed Abdullah v Illawarra Catholic Club

Case [2023] FWC 2356


[2023] FWC 2356

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Khan Rashed Abdullah
v

Illawarra Catholic Club

(U2023/6728)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Khan Rashed Abdullah (the applicant) was employed by Illawarra Catholic Club (the respondent) from the 6th of December 2022 through to the 3rd of July 2023.

  1. On the 30th of March 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The respondent objected to the application on the basis that the applicant did not meet the minimum employment period required to lodge an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

  2. There was also a dispute between the legal business names mentioned in the F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application and the F3 – Employer’s Response Forms.

  3. On the 30th of August 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent and he was required to respond by the 6th of September 2023. No response was received from the applicant at this time.

  4. On the 7th of September 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing him to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 12th of September 2023. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

  5. To date, the applicant has not responded to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent, or any further correspondence sent by my Chambers in writing.

  1. 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.

  1. 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).

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

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR766200>

Details
AGLC
Khan Rashed Abdullah v Illawarra Catholic Club [2023] FWC 2356
Case
[2023] FWC 2356
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Khan Rashed Abdullah filed an application for unfair dismissal against his former employer, Illawarra Catholic Club, under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Club objected to the application, asserting that Abdullah did not meet the minimum employment period required to lodge such an application and raised a dispute over the legal business names listed in the forms. Additionally, Abdullah failed to respond to correspondence from the Fair Work Commission regarding the jurisdictional objections and his application's prospects of success.

The Fair Work Commission was required to decide whether Abdullah's application could proceed, given the jurisdictional objections raised by the Club and Abdullah's failure to respond to correspondence from the Commission. The Commission considered section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which grants it the authority to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission determined that Abdullah's failure to respond to correspondence and objections constituted grounds for dismissing the application for want of prosecution.

Given Abdullah's lack of response to the jurisdictional objections and further correspondence, the Vice President of the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that Abdullah's failure to engage with the proceedings constituted a dismissal for want of prosecution. An order to that effect will issue 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.