Mickaylah Jayne Brown v Unknown

[2024] FWC 1744

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mickaylah Jayne Brown
v

Unknown

(U2024/5325)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 JULY 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 10 May 2024 Miss Mickaylah Jayne Brown, (the Applicant), made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application form filed by Miss Brown was incomplete in that she did not complete the Respondent details.

On 15 May 2024, Commission staff attempted to call Miss Brown to request the missing details. Miss Brown did not answer the call and a voicemail message was left asking her to return the call.

Later that day, Commission staff emailed Miss Brown advising that she needed to provide further details as the application was incomplete and the Commission required the Respondent’s details. That email also advised that if the Respondent’s details were not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Miss Brown, requesting that she contact the Commission.

On 28 May 2024 Commission staff attempted to call Miss Brown. Miss Brown did not answer the call and a further voicemail message was left asking her to return the call.

On 3 June 2024 Commission staff emailed Miss Brown advising that she needed to provide further details as the application was incomplete. That email also advised that if the Respondent’s details were not provided by the end of the day, the application may be dismissed.

To date, no response has been received and the application remains incomplete.

Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3‑2, see section 399A.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.

Miss Brown’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because it is incomplete. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Miss Brown’s application.

I am satisfied that Miss Brown’s application should be dismissed. Miss Brown has been given ample opportunity to rectify the very basic deficiency in her application. Unfortunately the Commission’s inquiries, requests and warnings have been ignored.

I have separately made an order dismissing Miss Brown’s application (PR776640).

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Mickaylah Jayne Brown lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy with the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was incomplete as it did not include the details of the respondent. Multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Miss Brown to request the missing information were unsuccessful. Despite warnings that the application may be dismissed if the missing information was not provided, Miss Brown did not respond, leading to the application being deemed incomplete.

The central issue before the Deputy President was whether the application should be dismissed under section 587 of the Act, which allows for the dismissal of an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act or is otherwise incomplete. The Deputy President found that the application was indeed incomplete as it lacked essential respondent details and, despite numerous attempts to contact Miss Brown to rectify this, she had failed to respond. The Deputy President was satisfied that the application should be dismissed as it was not made in accordance with the Act.

In dismissing the application, the Deputy President noted that Miss Brown had been given ample opportunity to provide the missing information and had ignored the Commission’s requests and warnings. The Deputy President concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and was therefore dismissible under section 587(1)(a) of the Act.

The Deputy President issued an order dismissing Miss Brown’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established