Mr Kade Mclachlan v Origin Meat Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 289


[2025] FWC 289

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Kade Mclachlan
v

ORIGIN MEAT PTY LTD

(U2024/15280)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE

SYDNEY, 3 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – applicant’s failure to communicate with Commission and/or comply with directions wholly unacceptable, unexplained and unsatisfactory - applicatioon dismissed for want of prosecution

  1. On 19 December 2024, Mr Kade Mclachlan (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 Origin Meat Pty Ltd (Respondent).

  1. Direction [2] of the Directions issued on 9 January 2025 reads:

“[2]     By 4.00pm AEDT on Thursday, 30 January 2025, the Applicant must file in the Commission and serve upon the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in support of his unfair dismissal claim.”

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

  1. On 31 January 2025, at 10:19 AM AEDT, the following email (Show Cause Email) was sent to the Applicant:

“Dear Mr Mclachlan,

Re: U2024/15280 - Mr Kade Mclachlan v ORIGIN MEAT PTY LTD

I refer to the matter above.

Background

On 9 January 2025, the Fair Work Commission issued the attached Directions in this matter.

Direction [2] of those directions read as follows:

[2]          By 4.00pm AEDT on Thursday, 30 January 2025, the Applicant must file in the Commission and serve upon the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in support of his unfair dismissal claim.

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 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 4:00pm AEDT Today, Friday 31 January 2025.

[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 may 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

<PR783913>

Details
AGLC
Mr Kade Mclachlan v Origin Meat Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 289
Case
[2025] FWC 289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission was an application by Mr Kade Mclachlan seeking an unfair dismissal remedy against Origin Meat Pty Ltd. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Mr Mclachlan filed the application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, but failed to comply with a direction from the Commission to file an outline of submissions, witness statements, and supporting documents by a specified deadline. Following Mr Mclachlan's non-compliance, the Commission sent a Show Cause email, requesting an explanation and submission as to why the matter should not be dismissed. Mr Mclachlan did not respond to the Show Cause email, leading the Deputy President to dismiss the application under section 587 of the Act.

The central legal issue was whether the Commission had the authority to dismiss Mr Mclachlan's application for his failure to comply with the directions and Show Cause email. The Deputy President considered the statutory provisions under section 587 of the Act, which empowers the 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 Deputy President referenced the case of Rebecca Tomas v Symbian Health, which highlighted the Commission's broad discretion to dismiss matters for other reasons not explicitly stated in the Act. Given Mr Mclachlan's complete failure to comply with the directions and the Show Cause email, the Deputy President concluded that the application was wholly unacceptable and dismissed it for want of prosecution.

In dismissing the application, the Deputy President found Mr Mclachlan's non-compliance to be wholly unexplained and wholly unsatisfactory. The Deputy President noted that Mr Mclachlan had not made any attempt to contact the Commission or provide any explanation for his failure to comply with the directions and the Show Cause email. The Deputy President exercised the power under section 587(3)(a) of the Act to dismiss the application on their own initiative. The decision was made in accordance with the statutory provisions and the case law cited, demonstrating the Commission's authority to manage applications effectively and ensure compliance with procedural requirements. An order dismissing the application was published contemporaneously with the decision.

The final orders were that Mr Mclachlan's application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed for want of prosecution. The dismissal was based on Mr Mclachlan's failure to comply with the directions and Show Cause email, and his lack of response or explanation for his non-compliance. The Deputy President exercised the Commission's statutory power under section 587 of the Act, ensuring that the application was managed in accordance with the law and procedural requirements.

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.