Paul Bastock v Shadforth's Civil Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 3008

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Paul Bastock
v

Shadforth’s Civil Pty Ltd

(U2025/2899)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 11 March 2025, Mr Paul Bastock made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

On 28 March 2025 the Commission was notified by Mr Bastock’s representative, Law on Lydiard, that the parties had reached an in-principle agreement to resolve Mr Bastock’s application. A conciliation conference scheduled for 7 April 2025 was vacated.

Since then neither Mr Bastock nor his representative, Law on Lydiard, has discontinued the application or taken any steps to prosecute Mr Bastock’s case. Law on Lydiard advised that they have not been able to contact Mr Bastock.

Commission staff asked for updates on 11 April, 28 April and 11 June 2025. No response has been received.

It appears that Mr Bastock is no longer pursuing his unfair dismissal claim.

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative for want of prosecution. If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

I am satisfied that Mr Bastock has been on notice that his application could be dismissed under s.587, and has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Bastock’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Paul Bastock on 11 March 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul Bastock lodged an application for unfair dismissal against Shadforth’s Civil Pty Ltd with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) on 11 March 2025. The application was to be heard under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. After an initial conference was vacated due to an in-principle agreement, no further steps were taken to progress the case. Shadforth’s Civil Pty Ltd reported the lack of prosecution to the FWC, who subsequently attempted to contact Mr Bastock and his representative, Law on Lydiard, multiple times between April and June 2025 without success. Law on Lydiard indicated that they had been unable to contact Mr Bastock, suggesting he may no longer be interested in pursuing the claim.

The legal issue for the FWC to decide was whether the application could be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The FWC considered whether Mr Bastock’s inactivity and lack of communication justified dismissal of the application. It was noted that the applicant had been aware that the case could be dismissed if no further steps were taken and had been given opportunities to provide reasons for continuing with the case. The FWC concluded that Mr Bastock’s lack of engagement with his representative and the FWC, combined with the absence of any steps to prosecute the claim, demonstrated that he was not willing to participate in his own case.

The FWC determined that Mr Bastock’s application could be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The Deputy President found that Mr Bastock had been given ample opportunity to present his case but had failed to do so, leading to the conclusion that he was no longer pursuing the unfair dismissal claim. The FWC referenced the case of Viavattene v Health Care Australia to support its decision, noting that the Commission is not required to persevere with an application if the applicant’s conduct shows a lack of willingness to participate. Consequently, the FWC dismissed Mr Bastock’s application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act.

Paul Bastock v Shadforth's Civil Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established