| [2022] FWC 3317 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Leonora Normington
v
The Historical Village Herberton (HVH)
(U2022/9775)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 16 DECEMBER 2022 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
Leonora Normington (the applicant) was employed by The Historical Village Herberton (HVH) (the respondent) from the 24th of December 2018 through to the 23rd of September 2022.
On the 5th of October 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 Herberton Trust atf Historic Village Herberton Pty Ltd.
On the 30th of November 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 7th of December 2022. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 8th of December 2022 and she was required to respond by the 5:00pm 13th of December 2022. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised her 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
<PR749024>
- AGLC
- Leonora Normington v The Historical Village Herberton (HVH) [2022] FWC 3317
- Case
- [2022] FWC 3317
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The main legal issue the Fair Work Commission had to decide was whether it had the jurisdiction to dismiss Normington's application for unfair dismissal for want of prosecution. The Commission found that section 587(3)(a) of the Act allowed it to dismiss the application on its own initiative. The Commission was not limited to the circumstances set out in section 587(1) of the Act and could dismiss the application for any reason. The Commission also noted that section 587(2) of the Act did not apply to the dismissal of the application as it was not made under section 365 or 773 of the Act.
The Fair Work Commission found that it had the jurisdiction to dismiss Normington's application for unfair dismissal for want of prosecution. The Commission noted that section 587(3)(a) of the Act allowed it to dismiss the application on its own initiative and that it was not limited to the circumstances set out in section 587(1) of the Act. The Commission also found that section 587(2) of the Act did not apply to the dismissal of the application as it was not made under section 365 or 773 of the Act. Therefore, the Commission decided to dismiss the application and issued an order to that effect.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed Leonora Normington's application for unfair dismissal against The Historical Village Herberton (HVH) for want of prosecution. The Commission found that it had the jurisdiction to dismiss the application under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was not limited to the circumstances set out in section 587(1) of the Act and could dismiss the application for any reason. The Commission also noted that section 587(2) of the Act did not apply to the dismissal of the application as it was not made under section 365 or 773 of the Act. An order to that effect was issued with the 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.