Mark Andrew West v Dracula's Cabaret Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 1186


[2023] FWC 1186

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mark Andrew West
v

Dracula’s Cabaret Pty Ltd

(U2023/2733)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 MAY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Mark Andrew West (the applicant) was employed by Dracula’s Cabaret Pty Ltd (the respondent) from the 4th of October 2022 through to the 20th of March 2023.

  1. On the 31st of March 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The respondent objected to the application on the basis that the applicant did not meet the minimum employment period required to lodge an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

  2. There was also a dispute between the legal business names mentioned in the F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application and the F3 – Employer’s Response Forms.

  3. On the 1st of May 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent and he was required to respond by the 8th of May 2023. No response was received from the applicant at this time.

  4. On the 10th of May 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing him to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 15th of May 2023. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

  1. To date, the applicant has not responded to the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent, or any further correspondence sent by my Chambers in writing.

  1. 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.

  1. 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).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR762050>

Details
AGLC
Mark Andrew West v Dracula's Cabaret Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1186
Case
[2023] FWC 1186
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Andrew West lodged an unfair dismissal application against Dracula’s Cabaret Pty Ltd, seeking a remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent objected to the application on the basis that the applicant had not met the minimum employment period required to lodge the application, and there was a discrepancy in the legal business names mentioned in the forms. The applicant did not respond to correspondence from the Commission or the respondent’s jurisdictional objections, resulting in the application being dismissed for want of prosecution. The Fair Work Commission, under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009, has the authority to dismiss an application on its own initiative if it is not being pursued by the applicant. In this case, the Vice President decided to dismiss the application as it had not been prosecuted by the applicant. An order to that effect will be issued with this 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.