Phillip Peel v International Multitrade Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 865

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Phillip Peel
v

International Multitrade Pty Ltd

(U2024/13875)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 27 MARCH 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 20 November 2024, Mr Phillip Peel made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Peel’s application raised a concern about whether his application was filed within the 21-day time limit.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr Peel on 2 December 2024, 17 January and 6 February 2025 by telephone, email and SMS about this concern. Mr Peel has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence and voice messages.

Section 587 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 Mr Peel has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Peel’s application. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Phillip Peel on 20 November 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Peel filed an application for unfair dismissal against International Multitrade Pty Ltd with the Fair Work Commission. The application was made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which concerns claims for unfair dismissal. The central issue in this matter was whether Mr Peel's application was filed within the 21-day time limit and if his failure to respond to the Commission's attempts to contact him warranted dismissal of the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether Mr Peel's lack of response to communication attempts constituted a lack of willingness to participate in his own case. This determination would inform whether the application could be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Commission had made multiple attempts to contact Mr Peel via telephone, email, and SMS, but he did not respond. The Commission considered if these communications provided Mr Peel with a sufficient opportunity to present his case on all material matters. Ultimately, the Deputy President was satisfied that Mr Peel had been given the opportunity to respond and that his inaction warranted the application being dismissed under section 587.

The Deputy President concluded that Mr Peel's failure to respond to the Commission's attempts to contact him indicated that he was no longer willing to participate in his own case. Consequently, the application for unfair dismissal was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act. The formal order made was that Mr Peel's application, filed on 20 November 2024, was dismissed in its entirety.

Phillip Peel v International Multitrade Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established