Rikaya Masri v Serco Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 2716

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Rikaya Masri
v

Serco Australia Pty Ltd

(U2025/5643)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2025

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

On 6 May 2025, Ms Rikaya Masri made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Masri did not attend a telephone conciliation conference scheduled for 10 June 2025.

Commission staff tried to contact Ms Masri on 18 June and 30 July 2025 about whether she wants to continue her unfair dismissal claim. Ms Masri has not responded to the Commission’s inquiries.

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 Ms Masri 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 Ms Masri’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Rikaya Masri on 6 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rikaya Masri filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission against Serco Australia Pty Ltd under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The basis of Ms Masri’s claim was her dismissal by Serco Australia. Ms Masri did not attend the scheduled telephone conciliation conference on 10 June 2025. The Commission subsequently attempted to contact Ms Masri on two occasions, 18 June and 30 July 2025, to ascertain her intentions regarding the continuation of her claim. However, Ms Masri did not respond to these attempts to contact her.

The legal issue before the Deputy President was whether Ms Masri's failure to engage in the proceedings warranted the dismissal of her application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act for want of prosecution. Section 587 of the Fair Work Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application if the applicant’s conduct or omissions demonstrate that they are no longer willing to pursue their case. The Deputy President concluded that Ms Masri had not demonstrated any intention to continue with her application and was satisfied that the application could be dismissed.

The Deputy President determined that Ms Masri had been given ample opportunity to present her case and that her failure to respond to the Commission's inquiries indicated a lack of willingness to pursue her unfair dismissal claim. Consequently, the Deputy President exercised the discretion under section 587 of the Fair Work Act to dismiss Ms Masri's application for want of prosecution. The Deputy President issued an order dismissing Ms Masri's application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Rikaya Masri v Serco Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established