Sam Kirkwood v Acrow Formwork and Scaffolding Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 3272


[2023] FWC 3272

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Sam Kirkwood
v

Acrow Formwork and Scaffolding Pty Ltd

(U2023/8850)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 7 DECEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 15 September 2023, Sam Kirkwood (the Applicant) made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to his former employment with Acrow Formwork and Scaffolding Pty Ltd

  1. A conciliation before a Fair Work Commission conciliator was listed to take place on 9 November 2023.  The Applicant did not attend the conciliation.

  1. On 21 November 2023, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in relation to the jurisdictional issues mentioned above and he was required to respond by 28 November 2023. No response was received at this time.

  1. Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 30 November 2023 and he was required to respond by 5:00pm on 5 December 2023. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  1. To date, the Applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides:

587      Dismissing applications

(1)       Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a)       the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b)       the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c)       the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

Note:   For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2)       Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a)       is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b)       has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3)       The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)       on its own initiative; or

(b)       on application.”

  1. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR769118>

Details
AGLC
Sam Kirkwood v Acrow Formwork and Scaffolding Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 3272
Case
[2023] FWC 3272
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sam Kirkwood versus Acrow Formwork and Scaffolding Pty Ltd, the applicant, Sam Kirkwood, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made in relation to his former employment with Acrow Formwork and Scaffolding Pty Ltd. Despite a conciliation being listed, the applicant did not attend, nor did he respond to any correspondence from the Commission regarding the jurisdictional issues and the dismissal of his application. The matter was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Act. The court considered the provisions of the Act that allow the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, if it is frivolous or vexatious, or if it has no reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, the court considered the power of the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative or on application.

The court held that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The court noted that the words "Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application" at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c). Given the applicant's failure to attend conciliation, respond to correspondence, and prosecute his application, the court decided to dismiss the application.

An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.