Satwinder Multani v Prabh Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2359

[2025] FWC 2359

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Satwinder Multani
v

Prabh Pty Ltd

(U2025/4354)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON BRISBANE, 12 AUGUST 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – 399A application to dismiss – Applicant given several opportunities to respond – Applicant failed to respond – application dismissed.

1. Mr Satwinder Multani (the Applicant) was employed by Prabh Pty Ltd (the Respondent) until he was dismissed on 22 March 2025. On 9 April 2025, the Applicant filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

1. On 8 May 2025, the Applicant did not attend the scheduled conciliation with the Commission. On 12 May 2025, the Applicant responded apologising for missing the conciliation and seeking a further date be set down.

1. On 5 June 2025, the Applicant failed to attend the relisted conciliation date.

1. On 26 June 2025, Deputy President Easton’s chambers emailed the Applicant seeking a response for him failing to attend the scheduled conciliation listings, seeking a response as to whether he wished to continue with his application or not. A response was sought by 3 July 2025.

1. On 7 July 2025, the Applicant responded confirming he wanted to continue with his application.

1. On 17 July 2025, the application was allocated to my chambers.

1. A case management conference was listed for 12pm on 29 July 2025. On 28 July 2025, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant by phone. No response was received, and no voicemail was able to be left.

1. On the morning of 29 July 2025, my chambers sent an email to the Applicant asking him to confirm his attendance at the listing at 12:00pm that day.

1. The Applicant’s girlfriend responded to the email, seeking for the matter to be put on hold urgently as she was unable to locate the Applicant and he was not in the country.

1. Deputy President Easton’s chambers confirmed that the case management conference would proceed as listed at 12:00pm on 29 July 2025. The Applicant did not attend the listing.

1. Later that day, on 29 July 2025, the Respondent filed an application to dismiss the matter under s.399A of the Act. That application outlined the reasons for seeking dismissal of the application as:

·   There being three jurisdictional objections (not an employee, not dismissed, jurisdiction not enlivened)

·   The Applicant’s failure to attend two conciliation conferences

·   The Applicant’s failure to attend the case management hearing

1. On 30 July 2025, directions were issued to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to respond to the s.399A application by 12:00pm 1 August 2025. The Applicant was provided two cases for his consideration:

·   Iain Kenneth Lockyear v Graeme Cox[2021] FWCFB 875; and

·   Dimitrios Perdikaris v KLF Holdings Pty Ltd[2022] FWC 384

1. The Applicant did not respond or file any submissions in support of his application remaining on foot.

1. Section 399A of the Act provides:

“399A  Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or
(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or
(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

Note 1: For another power of the FWC to dismiss applications for orders under Division 4, see section 587.

Note 2: The FWC may make an order for costs if the applicant’s failure causes the other party to the matter to incur costs (see section 400A).

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.”

1. 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]).

1. I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the facility under s.399A(1)(a) and (b) can and should be exercised. The Commission’s directions correspondence provided case law and resources for the Applicant to inform himself on the topic. The Applicant does not appear to have accessed the resources or has not informed the Commission of his intention regarding the application.

1. The Applicant has also been on notice of the likely consequences for his application if he did not respond to the Commission’s inquiry and it is evident he has failed to prosecute his application in accordance with the tests in s.399A.

1. On that basis, I have decided to dismiss Mr Multani’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order under s.399A(2):

1.   
The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Multani on 9 April 2025 is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR790625>