| [2022] FWC 3116 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Kramer Booth
v
F.V.S Services Group
(U2022/8796)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 24 NOVEMBER 2022 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
Kramer Booth (the applicant) was employed by F.V.S Services Group (the respondent) from the 9th of August 2021 until he was dismissed on the 18th of August 2022.
On the 29th of August 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 FVS Airconditioning and Electrical Pty Ltd.
On the 4th of November 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 11th of November 2022. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 16th of November 2022 and he was required to respond by the 5:00pm 16th of November 2022. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.
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
<PR748248>
- AGLC
- Kramer Booth v F.V.S Services Group [2022] FWC 3116
- Case
- [2022] FWC 3116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue the Commission had to decide was whether it had the authority to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The Commission found that the language of s.587(1) of the Act indicated that its jurisdiction to dismiss an application was not restricted to the specific circumstances outlined in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c). The Commission concluded that it could dismiss an application on its own initiative if the applicant failed to respond to correspondence or address discrepancies in the respondent's name.
The Commission dismissed the application for want of prosecution, as the applicant had not responded to correspondence and failed to address the discrepancies in the respondent's name. The Commission found that the applicant's failure to respond constituted a lack of prosecution, and thus, the application was dismissed. The Commission issued an order to that effect, dismissing the application and concluding the proceedings.
An order was issued dismissing the application for want of prosecution.
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.