Nathan Harkness v Integratedliving Australia Ltd

[2023] FWC 1205

[2023] FWC 1205

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Nathan Harkness
v

Integratedliving Australia Ltd

(U2023/3412)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 23 MAY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

1. Nathan Harkness (the applicant) was employed by Integratedliving Australia Ltd (the respondent) from the 30^th of October 2017 until he was dismissed on the 24^th of March 2023.

1. On the 20^th of April 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

1. The application was lodged on the 20^th of April 2023, which made the application 6 days late.
   
   

2. On the 11^th of May 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and he was required to respond by the 16^th of May 2023.
   
   

3. On the 17^th of May 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing him to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 19^th of May 2023. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

1. The applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.

1. Section 587 of the Act provides:

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.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), 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) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

1. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR762273>