Ryan Castle v Bungalow Oosh

[2025] FWC 2694

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ryan Castle
v

Bungalow OOSH

(U2025/4215)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

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

On 7 April 2025, Mr Ryan Castle made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

On 16 May 2025 Commission staff were advised that the parties had reached an in-principle agreement to resolve Mr Castle’s application.

Since then Mr Castle has not discontinued his application or taken any steps to prosecute his case.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Castle on 2 June, 17 June, 1 September, 2 September and 5 September 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

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 Castle 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 Castle’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Ryan Castle on 7 April 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an unfair dismissal case involving Ryan Castle and Bungalow OOSH. Mr Castle had applied under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an unfair dismissal remedy. The application was dismissed under section 587 for want of prosecution as Mr Castle had failed to take any steps to prosecute his case after the parties reached an in-principle agreement. The Commission had made multiple attempts to contact Mr Castle regarding the matter but received no response.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Castle's failure to prosecute his application after reaching an in-principle agreement justified dismissal of the application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission considered that if an applicant's conduct showed they were no longer willing to participate in their own case, the Commission was not required to persevere with the application. The Commission found that Mr Castle had been on notice that his application could be dismissed for want of prosecution and had had an opportunity to put a case for consideration. Therefore, the Commission was satisfied that dismissal of the application was warranted.

The Deputy President found that Mr Castle had not shown willingness to prosecute his application after reaching an in-principle agreement with Bungalow OOSH. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Castle, he had taken no steps to prosecute his case. The Deputy President concluded that dismissal of the application under section 587 was appropriate as Mr Castle had failed to participate in his own case. The application was dismissed and the Deputy President made an order dismissing the application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established