Ms Kirsty Buchanan v The Trustee for S and D Trust

Case [2025] FWC 383


[2025] FWC 383

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ms Kirsty Buchanan
v

The Trustee For S And D Trust

(U2024/14617)

COMMISSIONER PLATT

ADELAIDE, 10 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – s.399A application – application dismissed.

  1. On 5 December 2024, Ms Kirsty Buchanan (the Applicant) lodged an unfair dismissal application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) in relation to the termination of her employment with The Trustee For S And D Trust (the Respondent).

  1. The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 16 January 2025.

  1. On 16 January 2025, my Chambers issued a Notice of Listing with a date for Hearing and Directions for the filing of submissions, statements and supporting documents by no later than 4:00pm (SA) Thursday, 6 February 2025. The Applicant did not file any material by the timeframe required by the Directions or seek an extension of time.

  1. I convened a Case Management Conference at 4:30pm (SA) Thursday, 6 February 2025. The Applicant did not attend that conference. At the conclusion of the conference, my Chambers emailed the parties and provided the Applicant with an extension of time until 4:00pm (SA) Friday, 7 February 2025 to file her material. No information was filed by the Applicant, nor was any correspondence received.

  2. On 10 February 2025, the Respondent filed a s.399A application seeking that I dismiss the substantive s.394 application.

LEGISLATION

  1. Section 399A of the Act is as follows:

“399A            Dismissing applications

  1. The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

    (a)   failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

    (b)   failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

    (c)   failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

Note 1: For another power of the FWC to dismiss applications for orders under Division 4, see section 587.

Note 2: The FWC may make an order for costs if the applicant’s failure causes the other party to the matter to incur costs (see section 400A).

  1. The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

  1. This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.”

  1. The Applicant failed to the attend the Conference on 6 February 2025 and despite being warned by my Chambers that a failure to comply would likely result in the application being dismissed, has not submitted her material for the substantive s.394 application. To date, the Applicant has not responded, nor has any reasonable excuse been proffered for the Applicant’s failure to engage.

  1. It is apparent to me that the Applicant unreasonably failed to attend a conference and comply with directions. In my view, and taking into account the Respondent’s application, the circumstances above justify the dismissal of the application in accordance with s.399A, and I so order.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR784199>

Details
AGLC
Ms Kirsty Buchanan v The Trustee for S and D Trust [2025] FWC 383
Case
[2025] FWC 383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Ms Kirsty Buchanan, filed an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal from her employment with the Respondent, The Trustee for S and D Trust. The case was allocated to the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Commissioner Platt, and was set for hearing in Adelaide on 10 February 2025. Ms Buchanan did not attend the Case Management Conference scheduled for 6 February 2025 and failed to submit the required documents by the extended deadline of 7 February 2025. Despite being warned of potential consequences for non-compliance, Ms Buchanan did not respond or provide any reasonable excuse for her failure to attend or submit material.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the Applicant had unreasonably failed to comply with the Commission's directions and whether her failure warranted the dismissal of her application under section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Respondent argued that Ms Buchanan's non-attendance at the conference and non-compliance with directions were unreasonable and that the application should be dismissed. The Commission was required to determine whether Ms Buchanan's failure to comply with the Commission's directions and to attend the conference was unreasonable and whether this justified the dismissal of the application.

The Commission found that Ms Buchanan unreasonably failed to attend the Case Management Conference and to comply with the directions issued by the Commission. There was no evidence of any reasonable excuse for her non-attendance or non-compliance, and despite being warned of the potential consequences, she did not respond. The Commission concluded that the circumstances justified the dismissal of the application in accordance with section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission dismissed the application and noted that it could make an order for costs if the Applicant's failure caused the Respondent to incur costs.

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.