Mr Benjamin Bridge v Direct Freight (Qld) Pty Limited

Case [2024] FWC 2813


[2024] FWC 2813

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Benjamin Bridge
v

Direct Freight (Qld) Pty Limited

(U2024/9205)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE

SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 8 August 2024, Mr Benjamin Bridge (Applicant) filed an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) with the Fair Work Commission (Commission), being an application for an unfair dismissal remedy (Application). The Respondent to the Application is Direct Freight (Qld) Pty Limited.

  1. Direction [2] of the Directions issued on 27 September 2024 reads:

“[1]By 4.00pm AEST on Friday, 4 October 2024, the Applicant is to file with the Commission and serve upon the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in opposition to the no-dismissal jurisdictional objection [the Respondent] relies upon.”

  1. The Applicant did not comply with Direction [2].

  1. On 8 October 2024, at 3:05PM AEDT, the following email (Show Cause Email) was sent to the Applicant:

“Dear Parties,

Re: U2024/9205 - Mr Benjamin Bridge v Direct Freight (Qld) Pty Limited

I refer to the matter above.

Background

On 27 September 2024, the Fair Work Commission issued the attached Directions in this matter.

Direction [2] of those directions read as follows:

[1]          By 4.00pm AEST on Friday, 4 October 2024, the Applicant is to file with the Commission and serve upon the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in opposition to the no-dismissal jurisdictional objection [the Respondent] relies upon.

To date, Chambers has not received any materials in compliance with Direction [2].

Further directions regarding show cause

In view of the foregoing, the Deputy President [further] directs as follows:

[1]          The Applicant is to file with the Commission, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions regarding their non-compliance with directions. Further, the Applicant is to make submissions as to why this matter should not be dismissed. The Applicant is to comply with this Direction by no later than 12:00pm AEDT Tomorrow, Wednesday 9 October 2024.

[2]          If the Applicant does not comply with [Direction] [1] above, or if the Deputy President is not satisfied by the Applicant’s submissions, the matter will be dismissed without further notice.

Yours faithfully,

[Associate]”

  1. The Applicant has made no response to the Show Cause Email.

Legislative Provisions

  1. Section 587 of the Act reads:

“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.

(2)      Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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)The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)on its own initiative; or

(b)on application.”

  1. In Rebecca Tomas v Symbian Health [2011] FWA 5458, Commissioner Gooley stated the following with respect to the operation of s.587 of the Act:

“[57] Section 587 gives [the Fair Work Commission] the power to dismiss a matter. Section 587(a), (b) and do not limit [the Fair Work Commission’s] power to dismiss matters for other reasons.”

Consideration

  1. As the Applicant has made no attempt to comply with Direction [2] and/or the Show Cause Email, and has failed to contact the Commission or otherwise explain their non-compliance, I have decided to dismiss their Application.

  1. In dismissing the Applicant’s Application, I find that the Applicant’s non-compliance with Direction [2] and the Show Cause Email to be wholly unexplained, and wholly unsatisfactory.

  1. Pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act, the Application is dismissed for want of prosecution. An Order dismissing the Application will be published contemporaneously with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR780086>

Details
AGLC
Mr Benjamin Bridge v Direct Freight (Qld) Pty Limited [2024] FWC 2813
Case
[2024] FWC 2813
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mr Benjamin Bridge v Direct Freight (Qld) Pty Limited involved an application for an unfair dismissal remedy by Mr Bridge against his employer, Direct Freight (Qld) Pty Limited. The matter was heard by Deputy President Boyce in the Fair Work Commission. Mr Bridge sought relief under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for what he claimed to be an unfair dismissal. The employer contested the application on jurisdictional grounds, asserting that Mr Bridge had not complied with procedural requirements set forth by the Commission.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Commission had the authority to dismiss Mr Bridge's application for failing to comply with procedural directions and the subsequent show cause email. The Deputy President considered the provisions of section 587 of the Act, which allows the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, the Court examined the case of Rebecca Tomas v Symbian Health, which emphasised the broad discretion of the Commission in dismissing applications under section 587.

Deputy President Boyce found that Mr Bridge's complete non-compliance with the procedural directions and the show cause email was unexplained and unsatisfactory. Given that Mr Bridge made no attempt to respond or explain his non-compliance, the Deputy President dismissed the application for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The dismissal was justified as the application did not comply with the procedural requirements and had no reasonable prospects of success. An order dismissing the application was subsequently published with the 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.