Liam Boehme v Backstage Agency

[2025] FWC 1133

[2025] FWC 1133

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s 394—Unfair dismissal

Liam Boehme
v

Backstage Agency

(U2025/2356)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 24 APRIL 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s 587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

1. On 28 February 2025, Mr Liam Boehme (the Applicant) made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s 394 of the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (the Act).

1. The Applicant’s Form F2 application indicated that his dismissal took effect on 6 February 2025.

1. Under s 394(2) of the Act, an application for an unfair dismissal remedy must be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect or within such further period as the Commission may allow under s 394(3). Under section 394(3), a further period to lodge an application may be allowed if the Commission is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist. The Applicant’s application, lodged on 28 February 2025, was thus one day late.

1. The Chambers of Deputy President Easton emailed the Applicant on 26 March 2025 noting that it appeared that the application was filed one day late.  The Applicant was directed to inform Chambers of the basis upon which he said there were exceptional circumstances by close of business on 4 April 2025.  On 26 March 2025, an SMS was also sent to the Applicant advising that an important email had been sent.  Chambers received no response.

1. A final notice was emailed to the Applicant on 11 April 2025 noting the lack of response and notifying the Applicant that Deputy President Easton was considering dismissing his application under s 587 of the Act. The Applicant was directed to inform Chambers whether he wished to continue the application and, if he did, to explain his lack of response to earlier correspondence and directions by close of business on 16 April 2025. Commission staff sent an SMS on 11 April 2025 alerting the Applicant to the correspondence. Chambers has, at the time of writing, received no response from the Applicant.

1. Section 587 of the Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings for want of prosecution. If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

1. I am satisfied that the Applicant has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s 587 of the Act. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the facility under s 587(3)(a) can and should be engaged to dismiss the application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Liam Boehme on 28 February 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR786364>