Mr Simranjit Singh v Lancefield Brewery Pty Ltd T/As Lost Wateringhole-The Lancefield Brewery

Case [2025] FWC 297


[2025] FWC 297

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Mr Simranjit Singh

v

Lancefield Brewery Pty Ltd T/As Lost Wateringhole-The Lancefield Brewery

(C2024/9424)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 3 FEBRUARY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - whether the Applicant should be
granted permission to be represented

  1. For the reasons explained in transcript on 3 February 2025, the Applicant and Respondent are not granted permission to be represented under s.596 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

< PR783935>

Details
AGLC
Mr Simranjit Singh v Lancefield Brewery Pty Ltd T/As Lost Wateringhole-The Lancefield Brewery [2025] FWC 297
Case
[2025] FWC 297
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by Mr Simranjit Singh against Lancefield Brewery Pty Ltd trading as Lost Wateringhole-The Lancefield Brewery. The applicant, Mr Singh, sought to address alleged contraventions involving his dismissal. The case was brought under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which pertains to the application for dealing with contraventions involving dismissal. The proceedings were held in Melbourne on 3 February 2025, with Commissioner Johns presiding.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Singh should be granted permission to be represented under section 596 of the Fair Work Act. This section allows for the granting of representation to an applicant in proceedings under the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to assess the application based on the merits and the circumstances of the case, considering the principles of fairness and the necessity for representation.

Commissioner Johns concluded that neither the applicant nor the respondent should be granted permission to be represented. The decision was based on the transcript provided on the day of the hearing. The Commission found that the circumstances did not necessitate representation and that the proceedings could proceed without it. The reasoning behind the decision was articulated in the transcript, which outlined the factors considered by the Commissioner.

The final order of the Commission was that neither party was granted permission to be represented under section 596 of the Fair Work Act. This decision allowed the case to proceed without the involvement of legal representatives for either party.

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.