Paula Stevens v Global Intellectual Group Summary

[2022] FWC 2456

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Paula Stevens
v

Global Intellectual Group

(U2015/15044)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 14 SEPTEMBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - deregistration - application dismissed.

On 26 April 2016 the Fair Work Commission (Commission) issued a Decision[1] in relation to the application by Ms Paula Stevens (the Applicant) for remedy for unfair dismissal.

The Applicant had named Global Intellectual Group (Respondent) as the Respondent entity in the Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2). The Commission performed a check on the ASIC liquidation notices database which confirmed that on 15 March 2016 at a special meeting of the Respondent’s creditors, a resolution was passed for the Respondent to be wound up voluntarily.

The Decision issued on 26 April 2016 stayed the Applicant’s application on the basis that the Respondent was in liquidation and pursuant to s.500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001, the application was not able to proceed except by leave of the Court.[2]

On 2 September 2022 the Commission performed a search on the ASIC company database which revealed that the Respondent entity had been deregistered on 28 August 2021.

On 5 September 2022 the Commission wrote to the Applicant advising of the Respondent’s deregistration and that no proceedings can continue against a deregistered company. On that basis the Applicant was given an opportunity to file a Form F50–Notice of Discontinuance (Notice of Discontinuance). The Applicant was advised that if no Notice of Discontinuance is received by 12 September 2022 the application may be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospects of success. The Applicant did not respond to the correspondence or file a Notice of Discontinuance.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant’s application has no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, I will exercise my power under s.587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to dismiss the application. An order[3] giving effect to this decision will be issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

[1] [2016] FWC 2591

[2] Ibid

[3] PR745837

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paula Stevens brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Global Intellectual Group before the Fair Work Commission. The Commission had initially stayed the proceedings because Global Intellectual Group had entered voluntary liquidation. However, later it was discovered that the company had been deregistered, which rendered the proceedings moot. Stevens did not take any steps to discontinue the proceedings, resulting in Global Intellectual Group seeking the dismissal of the claim. The Commission found that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed it.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the deregistration of the company meant that the proceedings could not continue and whether the applicant's inaction in discontinuing the application meant that the application should be dismissed. The Commission determined that once the company was deregistered, the applicant's claims could no longer proceed. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the applicant's failure to take steps to discontinue the application meant that there were no reasonable prospects of success for the application.

The Commission found that the applicant's failure to discontinue the application after being notified of the company's deregistration meant that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission exercised its power under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to dismiss the application. The Commission noted that an order giving effect to the decision would be issued separately.

In light of the above, the Commission dismissed Paula Stevens' application for unfair dismissal against Global Intellectual Group. The dismissal was based on the company's deregistration and the applicant's failure to discontinue the application. An order giving effect to the decision was issued separately.

Paula Stevens v Global Intellectual Group

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established