Maria Marques v Noni B Holdings Pty Limited Summary

[2025] FWC 860

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Maria Marques
v

Noni B Holdings Pty Limited

(U2024/14563)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 27 MARCH 2025

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

On 2 December 2024, Ms Maria Marques made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Marques advised Commission staff that her former employer, Noni B Holdings Pty Limited, was in voluntary administration. Since then Ms Marques has not taken steps to progress her unfair dismissal claim.

Section 587 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]).

I am satisfied that Ms Marques has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Ms Marques’ application. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Maria Marques on 2 December 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maria Marques filed an unfair dismissal claim against Noni B Holdings Pty Limited with the Fair Work Commission on 2 December 2024, under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute concerns the dismissal of Ms Marques by her former employer, Noni B Holdings Pty Limited, which subsequently entered voluntary administration. Ms Marques has not pursued her claim further since the employer’s administration, leading to the current application by the Commission to dismiss the case. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Easton, was tasked with determining whether the application should be dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for want of prosecution.

The central legal issue was whether Ms Marques had demonstrated a willingness to pursue her unfair dismissal claim. Given that she had not taken any steps to progress the claim since the employer's administration, the Commission considered whether it was appropriate to dismiss the application on its own initiative. The relevant legal principle here is that the Commission is not obligated to continue with an application if the applicant's conduct indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the case. The court referenced the precedent set in Viavattene v Health Care Australia, which outlined circumstances under which the Commission could dismiss an application for want of prosecution.

Deputy President Easton concluded that Ms Marques had ample opportunity to present her case and had not taken any steps to do so. The Deputy President found that Ms Marques' inaction demonstrated a lack of willingness to pursue the claim, and thus, the application should be dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Deputy President ordered that the application made by Ms Maria Marques be dismissed.

Maria Marques v Noni B Holdings Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established