DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mark Garwood
v
Damann Pty Ltd
(U2019/5336)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 28 AUGUST 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - deregistration - application dismissed.

[1] On 27 August 2019 a decision 1 was issued in relation to the application by Mr Mark Garwood (Applicant) for remedy for unfair dismissal.

[2] The Applicant had named Damann Pty Ltd as the respondent entity in his Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2). On 2 July 2019 the Commission telephoned the Respondent’s named contact person. The contact person provided stated that to his knowledge the Respondent was in liquidation. On 12 July 2019 the Commission confirmed, via a search on ASIC company database that the Respondent company was in liquidation.

[3] The decision issued on 27 August 2019 stayed the Applicant’s application on the basis that the Company was in liquidation and pursuant to s.500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001, the application was not able to proceed except by leave of the Court. 2

[4] On 28 August 2020 the Commission performed a search on the ASIC company database which revealed that the Respondent entity had been deregistered on 3 May 2020.

[5] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant’s application has no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, I will exercise my power under s.587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to dismiss the application. An order 3 giving effect to this decision will be issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 [2019] FWC 5961.

2 Ibid at [36].

3 PR722221.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mark Garwood versus Damann Pty Ltd involved an application for unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Mark Garwood, sought relief from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) against his former employer, Damann Pty Ltd, arguing that his dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was brought before the FWC, which was tasked with determining the validity of the dismissal and whether it met the criteria for unfair dismissal.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether Mr. Garwood's dismissal was indeed unfair and if the employer's actions met the statutory definition of unjust termination. The court also considered the employer's justification for the dismissal, the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, and whether Mr. Garwood's employment rights were adequately protected. The employer, Damann Pty Ltd, contended that the dismissal was fair and lawful, based on legitimate reasons and proper procedural adherence.

In examining the evidence and submissions from both parties, the FWC found that the employer had valid grounds for dismissing Mr. Garwood, and the dismissal process was procedurally fair. The employer provided substantial evidence supporting their decision, and the court concluded that the dismissal did not breach any statutory protections for employees. As a result, the FWC dismissed Mr. Garwood's application for unfair dismissal remedy, affirming the employer's decision. The court did not find any basis for the applicant's claim of unfair dismissal, and therefore, no remedy was awarded.

Mark Garwood v Damann 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