Mr Darren Preston v W.A Hydromulch

Case [2023] FWC 213


[2023] FWC 213

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Darren Preston
v

W.A Hydromulch

(U2023/173)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Darren Preston (the applicant) was employed by W.A Hydromulch (the respondent) from the 17th of November 2021 until he was dismissed on the 5th of December 2022.

  1. On the 5th of January 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The application was lodged 10 days out of time.

  2. On the 13th of January 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and he was required to respond by the 17th of January 2023.

  3. On the 18th of January 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing him to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 20th of January 2023. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

  1. To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.

  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

<PR749943>

Details
AGLC
Mr Darren Preston v W.A Hydromulch [2023] FWC 213
Case
[2023] FWC 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Darren Preston, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against his former employer, W.A Hydromulch. Mr Preston was employed by the respondent from November 17, 2021, until his dismissal on December 5, 2022. He lodged an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on January 5, 2023, which was 10 days out of the allowable time. The Commission sent correspondence to the applicant on January 13, 2023, requesting a response by January 17, 2023, and further correspondence on January 18, 2023, with a response required by 5:00pm on January 20, 2023. The applicant has not responded to any correspondence to date.

The central legal issue in this matter was whether the application should be dismissed for being lodged out of time, and if so, under what provision of the Fair Work Act. The relevant provision of the Act is section 587, which provides the criteria under which the Fair Work Commission may dismiss an application. Specifically, the Commission may 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 the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence directing him to respond to the matter of the application being out of time, the Vice President concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success.

The Vice President found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act as it was lodged 10 days out of the allowable time. Further, the application had no reasonable prospects of success due to the applicant's failure to respond to multiple correspondences. The Vice President exercised the power to dismiss the application for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The Vice President noted that section 587(1) of the Act establishes 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).

An order dismissing the application will issue with this 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.