Mouna Issa v Marist180 Summary

[2025] FWC 3015

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mouna Issa
v

Marist180

(U2025/8853)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2025

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

On 22 May 2025, Miss Mouna Issa made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The information provided in Miss Issa’s application raised a concern about whether the application was filed within the 21 day time limit.

Commission staff tried to contact Ms Issa on 24 June, 5 August, 6 August, 5 September and 8 September 2025 about this concern by telephone, email and SMS.

On 5 August and 6 August 2025 Ms Issa sent emails advising that she had not received the earlier emails from the Commission. The earlier emails were resent as well as an SMS to alert Miss Issa that there is an important email sent and to check her junk/spam folders.

To date no response has been received.

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 Miss Issa 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 Miss Issa’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Miss Mouna Issa on 22 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mouna Issa v Marist180, the applicant, Miss Mouna Issa, filed an application for unfair dismissal against her employer, Marist180, under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue in this case was whether Miss Issa's application was filed within the required 21-day time limit and whether her subsequent lack of engagement warranted dismissal of the application under section 587 for want of prosecution.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the timeliness of Miss Issa's application and whether her failure to respond to communications from the Commission justified dismissal of her application. The court had to assess whether Miss Issa had ceased to pursue her application and if the Commission could, therefore, dismiss the application on its own initiative.

The court found that Miss Issa had not responded to multiple attempts by the Commission to contact her, including telephone calls, emails, and SMS messages, despite being informed about the potential issues with her application. The court referenced the precedent set in Viavattene v Health Care Australia, which held 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. Given the circumstances, the court concluded that Miss Issa had effectively abandoned her application.

Consequently, the court dismissed Miss Issa's application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The order states that the application made by Miss Mouna Issa on 22 May 2025 is dismissed.

Mouna Issa v Marist180

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established