Peter Kirkland-Burr v Silk Contract Logistics Pty Ltd
[2025] FWC 1132
•24 APRIL 2025
| [2025] FWC 1132 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION AND ORDER |
Fair Work Act 2009
s 394—Unfair dismissal
Peter Kirkland-Burr
v
Silk Contract Logistics Pty Ltd
(U2025/3166)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT | PERTH, 24 APRIL 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s 587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.
On 15 March 2025, Mr Peter Kirland-Burr (the Applicant) made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s 394 of the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (the Act).
Under s 394(2) of the Act, an application for an unfair dismissal remedy must be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect or within such further period as the Commission may allow under s 394(3). Under section 394(3), a further period to lodge an application may be allowed if the Commission is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.
The Applicant’s Form F2 application, lodged on 15 March 2025, indicated that his dismissal took effect on 21 February 2025. The application therefore appears to have been lodged one day late. On his Form F2, the Applicant acknowledged that his application was not made within 21 days of his dismissal. The Applicant contended that information which became known to him on 13 March 2025 suggested that his position, which he had been told was being made redundant, might, according to the Applicant, still exist.
The Chambers of Deputy President Easton emailed the Applicant on 27 March 2025 in relation to the Applicant’s application being four days [sic] late. The Applicant was directed to inform Chambers of the basis upon which the Applicant said there were exceptional circumstances by close of business on 7 April 2025. Chambers also sent the Applicant an SMS on 27 March 2025 alerting him to this correspondence. Chambers received no response.
A final notice was emailed to the Applicant on 11 April 2025 noting the lack of response and notifying the Applicant that Deputy President Easton was considering dismissing his application under s 587 of the Act. The Applicant was directed to inform Chambers whether he wished to continue the application and, if he did, to explain his lack of response to earlier correspondence and directions, by close of business on 16 April 2025. Commission staff sent an SMS on 11 April 2025 alerting the Applicant to the correspondence. Chambers has, at the time of writing, received no response from the Applicant.
Section 587 of the Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings 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 the Applicant has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s 587 of the Act. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the facility under s 587(3)(a) can and should be engaged to dismiss the application. I make the following order:
A.The application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Peter Kirland-Burr on 15 March 2025 is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR786363>
0