Mr Diako Nourfadi v Viatek Technology Pty Ltd
[2017] FWCFB 1898
•4 APRIL 2017
| [2017] FWCFB 1898 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
REASONS FOR DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions
v
Viatek Technology Pty Ltd
(C2017/1194)
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 4 APRIL 2017 |
Appeal against decision [2017] FWC 819 and Order PR590328 of Commissioner Roe at Melbourne on 20 February 2017 in matter number U2016/12360 - Permission to Appeal dismissed – ex tempore – No appearance from Appellant.
[1] On 20 February 2017, Commissioner Roe issued a Decision 1 which found that Mr Diako Nourfadi (“the Appellant”) was fairly dismissed and not entitled to relief from unfair dismissal.
[2] The Appellant lodged this appeal with the Commission on 6 March 2017. On the same day, the Appellant was given information about the Appeal process, including being made aware of the requirement to file Appeal Books within 7 days from lodgement.
[3] On 13 March 2017, the appeal was listed for hearing before the Full Bench on 3 April 2017 at not before 10:00am. Parties were sent a Notice of Listing, Directions and Information Sheet in correspondence on the same day.
[4] In accordance with those Directions, the Appellant was directed to file with the Commission and serve on the Respondent his submissions by 5:00pm 24 March 2017.
[5] On 27 March 2017, an email was sent to the Appellant informing him that the required Appeal Books were overdue, and directing him to further information on appeal proceedings via a link to the Commission website. On the same day the Appellant replied attaching multiple documents he sought to rely on as an Appeal Book.
[6] On 31 March 2017, the Appellant was sent an email informing him that the outline of submissions was overdue. On the same day, the Appellant sought guidance on what documents should be included in the outline of submissions, and was directed to the Commission website page on Appeal Proceedings via a link over email. The relevant information on the webpage was also highlighted for the Appellant.
[7] On 3 April 2017, by the time the hearing had commenced the Appellant had not filed submissions.
[8] The Appellant did not appear at the hearing. An attempt was made to contact the Appellant; we were not able to make contact.
[9] As the Appellant did not appear at the hearing, we made an ex tempore decision refusing permission to appeal.
[10] Accordingly, permission to appeal is refused.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
Appearances:
No appearances for the Appellant.
Ms K Richardson for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2017.
Sydney:
3 April
1 Diako Nourfadi v Viatek Technology Pty Ltd[2017] FWC 819.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR591578>
0
1
0