Mia Ireland v CJs Café Holdings Pty Ltd

[2024] FWC 916

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mia Ireland
v

CJs Café Holdings Pty Ltd

(U2024/728)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 9 APRIL 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - application dismissed

This decision relates to an unfair dismissal application by Ms Mia Ireland pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) against her former employer, CJs Café Holdings Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The matter was listed for a directions hearing, by telephone, at 9am on 15 March 2024. No appearance was made by or on behalf of Ms Ireland at the directions hearing.

At 9:30am on Friday 15 March 2024, the following email was sent from my Chambers to Ms Ireland and her representative, Unfair Dismissals Australia Pty Ltd:

“Dear Ms Ireland
U2024/728 - Mia Ireland v CJs Café Holdings Pty Ltd
This matter was listed for directions by telephone before Deputy President Saunders at 9am this morning pursuant to a Notice of Listing sent to the parties on 13 March 2024.
There was no appearance by you or on your behalf at the directions hearing.
This matter is now listed for a further directions hearing (by telephone) at 12pm, Tuesday 19 March 2024.
It is necessary for both parties to participate in this directions hearing. If you do not participate in the directions hearing at 12pm, Tuesday 19 March 2024, your unfair dismissal application may be dismissed without further prior notice to you.
A notice of listing has just been sent out and is also attached to this email.”

Although both Ms Ireland and staff from Unfair Dismissals Pty Ltd informed my Associate that a settlement between the parties had been reached, neither responded to requests from my Chambers for either a signed copy of the settlement agreement or a form F50 Notice of Discontinuance.

Neither Ms Ireland nor her representative from Unfair Dismissals Pty Ltd attended the directions hearing at 12pm on 19 March 2024. There was no request by or on behalf of Ms Ireland that an alternative time or date be set for this directions hearing.

The Respondent attended the directions hearing at 12pm on 19 March 2024. Following that directions hearing, I issued written directions to the parties, including the following:

“1. By 4pm on 2 April 2024, the applicant must file and serve the witness statements, documents and submissions on which they wish to rely in support of their application. If the applicant does not comply with this direction, the Deputy President may dismiss their application without further notice to the applicant.”

Ms Ireland did not comply with the above direction, and on 4 April 2024, was given an extension of time until 4pm on 5 April 2024. Ms Ireland did not file any material by the extended deadline, nor has the Applicant or her representative made any contact with the Commission since 19 March 2024.

In light of Ms Ireland’s failure to appear at the directions hearings on 15 March 2024 and 19 March 2024, her failure to comply with directions requiring her to file and serve material in support of her case, and her failure to take any steps to pursue her case, I have decided to exercise my discretion pursuant to s 587(1) of the Act to dismiss Ms Ireland’s unfair dismissal application against the respondent in these proceedings. Ms Ireland’s unfair dismissal application is therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Mia Ireland brought an unfair dismissal claim against her former employer, CJs Café Holdings Pty Ltd, under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, Mia Ireland, alleged that her dismissal was unfair. The respondent, CJs Café Holdings Pty Ltd, contested the claim. The case was scheduled for a directions hearing on 15 March 2024, but Mia Ireland failed to appear or be represented, despite prior notice. A subsequent email reminder was sent to Mia Ireland and her representative, Unfair Dismissals Australia Pty Ltd, informing them of the need for participation in an upcoming directions hearing on 19 March 2024. Mia Ireland and her representative informed the court of a settlement, but failed to provide necessary documentation to substantiate this claim. Mia Ireland and her representative did not attend the rescheduled directions hearing on 19 March 2024, nor did they request an alternative date or time. The respondent, CJs Café Holdings Pty Ltd, attended the hearing. Following this, the Deputy President issued written directions requiring Mia Ireland to file and serve witness statements, documents, and submissions by 4 April 2024. Mia Ireland was granted an extension until 5 April 2024, which she also failed to meet.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mia Ireland's failure to appear at the required directions hearings, her non-compliance with the court's directions to file and serve necessary material, and her failure to take any steps to pursue her case warranted the dismissal of her unfair dismissal application. The court considered the provisions of section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which empowers the court to dismiss an application if the applicant has failed to take steps to pursue the case. The court found that Mia Ireland's non-appearance, non-compliance with directions, and inactivity in pursuing her case constituted sufficient grounds to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application.

The Deputy President dismissed Mia Ireland's unfair dismissal application against CJs Café Holdings Pty Ltd. The dismissal was based on Mia Ireland's failure to appear at the directions hearings on both 15 March 2024 and 19 March 2024, her failure to comply with the directions to file and serve material in support of her case, and her failure to take any steps to pursue her case. The court held that these actions justified the exercise of its discretion under section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to dismiss the application. As a result, Mia Ireland's unfair dismissal application was dismissed with no further orders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established