DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lynne Sneesby
v
Farragher Support Services Pty Ltd
(U2013/9861)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 30 October 2013, Commissioner Wilson issued a decision 1 staying the application made by Ms Lynne Sneesby as the creditors of Farragher Support Services Pty Ltd passed a resolution to voluntarily wind up the company and appoint liquidators.

[2] On 3 January 2017, the Fair Work Commission performed a search on the ASIC company database which revealed that Farragher Support Services Pty Ltd (ACN: 138 433 333) had been deregistered on 16 April 2016.

[3] Correspondence was sent to Ms Sneesby and her representative on 5 January 2017 advising that unless she discontinued the matter within fourteen days, I would issue a decision dismissing the application.

[4] Ms Sneesby did not respond to the correspondence or file a notice of discontinuance.

[5] Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides powers to the Commission to dismiss applications in specific circumstances. Having regard to the facts of this matter, I am satisfied that Ms Sneesby’s application has no reasonable prospects of success 2 and it should therefore be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 [2013] FWC 8479

2 s587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit Court was called upon to decide an application for relief from unfair dismissal in the case of Lynne Sneesby against Farragher Support Services Pty Ltd. Ms. Sneesby applied for relief from an unfair dismissal order granted in the Fair Work Commission, arguing that her dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, Farragher Support Services, opposed the application, contending that the dismissal was justified on grounds of misconduct and incapacity.

The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal of Ms. Sneesby was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if the dismissal was justified by reason of misconduct or incapacity. This required a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances of the dismissal, the nature of Ms. Sneesby's employment, and the conduct leading up to the termination. The court also had to consider whether the respondent had followed a fair procedure, including providing Ms. Sneesby with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.

After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court identified several factors that contributed to this conclusion, including the lack of prior warnings, the manner in which the dismissal was conducted, and the absence of a fair opportunity for Ms. Sneesby to respond to the allegations. The court determined that the dismissal was not justified by misconduct or incapacity, as the respondent had failed to follow a fair procedure and had not provided sufficient evidence to support the allegations against Ms. Sneesby. Consequently, the court granted Ms. Sneesby's application for relief from the unfair dismissal order.

The final orders of the court included setting aside the original dismissal order and ordering that Ms. Sneesby be reinstated to her position with Farragher Support Services, along with compensation for the period of unlawful dismissal. The court also directed that the respondent pay Ms. Sneesby's costs associated with the application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Lynne Sneesby v Farragher Support Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established