Lachlan Teece v Project Bravo Brewing Services Pty Ltd

[2023] FWC 3125

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Lachlan Teece
v

Project Bravo Brewing Services Pty Ltd

(U2023/9070)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 28 NOVEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Lachlan Teece (the Applicant) was employed by Project Bravo Brewing Services Pty Ltd (the Respondent) from 25 April 2022 until he was dismissed on 31 August 2023.

On 20 September 2023, the Applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The Respondent advised my Chambers on 24 October 2023 that they have been placed in liquidation and that the liquidator, is Steven Staatz of Vincents. The Respondent requested that any further correspondence be directed to Vincents.

On 1 November 2023, correspondence was sent to the Parties and the Liquidator in relation to the jurisdictional issue mentioned above and the Applicant was required to respond by 8 November 2023. No response was received at this time.

Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 13 November 2023 as a follow-up. No response was received.

On 17 November 2023 a final notice was emailed to the Applicant and he was required to respond by 5:00pm on 22 November 2023. 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.

Note:   For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.
(2)       Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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)       The 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

The Fair Work Commission dismissed an application for unfair dismissal brought by Lachlan Teece against Project Bravo Brewing Services Pty Ltd. Teece, who was employed by the company from April 2022 until his dismissal in August 2023, sought a remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Respondent subsequently entered liquidation, with Steven Staatz of Vincents appointed as liquidator. Despite multiple notices and deadlines, Teece failed to respond to correspondence from the Commission, resulting in his application being dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The Commission found that Teece's failure to engage with the proceedings justified dismissal, as the application had no reasonable prospects of success due to his non-participation.

The central legal issue was whether the Commission had the authority to dismiss the application for unfair dismissal due to the Applicant's inactivity. The Fair Work Act allows the Commission 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 considered whether the Applicant's failure to respond to correspondence and meet deadlines constituted a sufficient ground for dismissal under section 587 of the Act. The Commission concluded that the Applicant's lack of response justified the dismissal of his application without further notice, as it indicated the application had no reasonable prospects of success.

The Commission found that the Applicant's repeated failure to respond to multiple notices and deadlines provided a clear indication that the application was unlikely to succeed. The Commission emphasized that the statutory power to dismiss an application was not limited to the specific grounds outlined in section 587(1) of the Act. Given the Applicant's lack of engagement with the proceedings, the Commission exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance and active participation in employment-related disputes.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order dismissing Lachlan Teece's application for unfair dismissal against Project Bravo Brewing Services Pty Ltd. The dismissal was based on the Applicant's failure to respond to correspondence and meet deadlines, which the Commission found justified the dismissal for want of prosecution. This outcome highlights the necessity for applicants to engage with the Commission's processes to ensure their applications are considered on merit.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established