Satyanarayan Narendra v Caprock International Pty. Limited

[2025] FWC 544

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Satyanarayan Narendra
v

Caprock International Pty. Limited

(U2024/11821)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 21 FEBRUARY 2025

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

On 3 October 2024, Mr Satyanarayan Narendra made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

On 15 November 2024 Commission staff were advised that the parties had reached an in-principle agreement to resolve Mr Narendra’s application.

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

Commission staff sent correspondence and messages to Mr Narendra on 5 December 2024, 16 December 2024 and 23 January 2025 about the unfair dismissal application. Mr Narendra has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

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 Narendra has been on notice that his application could be dismissed under s.587, and that they have had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the making of 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 Narendra’s application.

I have therefore decided to make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Satyanarayan Narendra on 3 October 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard a case where Mr. Satyanarayan Narendra filed an unfair dismissal application against Caprock International Pty. Limited. The application was made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was initiated by Mr. Narendra on 3 October 2024. The Commission was informed on 15 November 2024 that the parties had reached an in-principle agreement to resolve the application. However, Mr. Narendra did not take any further steps to prosecute the application, and the Commission's multiple attempts to contact him went unanswered.

The legal issues the Commission had to decide included whether Mr. Narendra's lack of engagement with the proceedings constituted a want of prosecution warranting dismissal under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission considered whether Mr. Narendra's failure to respond to communications and advance his application constituted a clear indication that he was no longer willing to participate in his own case.

In reaching its decision, the Commission referred to the precedent set in Viavattene v Health Care Australia, which held that an application could be dismissed if the applicant's conduct or omissions showed a lack of willingness to participate in their own case. The Commission found that Mr. Narendra had been adequately notified of the potential for dismissal and had ample opportunity to present his case but failed to do so. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the application should be dismissed under section 587 for want of prosecution.

The Commission issued an order dismissing Mr. Narendra's application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dismissal took effect as of the date of the decision, 21 February 2025. The Commission emphasized that the dismissal was due to Mr. Narendra's lack of engagement and failure to prosecute his application despite multiple opportunities to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established