Mr Damien Barned v FVS Air-Conditioning and Electrical

Case [2022] FWC 3115


[2022] FWC 3115

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Damien Barned
v

FVS Air-Conditioning and Electrical

(U2022/9553)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 NOVEMBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Damien Barned (the applicant) was employed by FVS Air-Conditioning and Electrical (the respondent) from the 6th of September 2022.

  1. On the 26th of September 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  2. The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was FVS Airconditioning and Electrical Pty Ltd.

  3. On the 4th of November 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 11th of November 2022. No response was received at this time.

  4. Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 16th of November 2022 and he was required to respond by the 5:00pm 16th of November 2022. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  5. To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides:

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.

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

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

  1. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748246>

Details
AGLC
Mr Damien Barned v FVS Air-Conditioning and Electrical [2022] FWC 3115
Case
[2022] FWC 3115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mr Damien Barned against FVS Air-Conditioning and Electrical involved an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Barned had been employed by FVS Air-Conditioning and Electrical for a brief period before his dismissal, which he contested as unfair. The respondent in this case was initially identified as FVS Airconditioning and Electrical Pty Ltd, but a discrepancy in the legal business name was noted. Mr Barned was required to respond to correspondence regarding this discrepancy, but failed to do so, resulting in his application being dismissed without notice.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the application could be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This section 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. Given that Mr Barned did not respond to any of the correspondence sent to him, the court found that his application was not being prosecuted and thus could be dismissed.

In reaching its decision, the court considered that the jurisdiction to dismiss an application under section 587(3)(a) is not limited to the specific circumstances outlined in subsection (1). The court determined that the application was not being pursued by Mr Barned, as evidenced by his failure to respond to the notices sent to him. Consequently, the court decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. An order to this effect will be issued 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.