Mr Diako Nourfadi v Viatek Technology Pty Ltd

[2017] FWCFB 1898

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Mr Diako Nourfadi
v
Viatek Technology Pty Ltd
(C2017/1194)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY
COMMISSIONER JOHNS

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was lodged by Mr Diako Nourfadi against the decision made by Commissioner Roe in the Fair Work Commission on 20 February 2017. The matter in question pertained to a dispute between Mr Nourfadi and Viatek Technology Pty Ltd, regarding issues that arose from his employment. The appeal was heard and subsequently dismissed by the Commission on an ex tempore basis due to the absence of the appellant at the hearing.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address included the validity of the decision made by Commissioner Roe and whether there were grounds for the appellant to successfully appeal the decision. The appellant's case was to challenge the determination made in the original decision, which had been upheld by the Commission. The court had to determine whether there were any errors in the original decision that warranted an appeal and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the appellant did not appear for the hearing, which was a critical factor in the dismissal of the appeal. The court observed that the appellant had failed to provide any substantive argument or evidence to support the appeal, and as such, the appeal was dismissed. The court further noted that the original decision by Commissioner Roe had been carefully considered and that there were no apparent errors in law or fact that would warrant an appeal. Consequently, the court upheld the original decision and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the original decision and order of Commissioner Roe remain in full force and effect. The court emphasised that the dismissal of the appeal was based on the appellant's failure to appear and provide any substantial grounds for the appeal. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural requirements in legal proceedings and the consequences of failing to meet them.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established