DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shazia Matyana
v
Lolitta Clothing Pty Ltd T/A Lolitta Clothing
(U2012/11828)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 27 JANUARY 2016

Application for unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 27 July 2012, Ms Shazia Matyana filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy.

[2] On 17 October 2012, the Fair Work Commission was advised by Lolitta Clothing Pty Ltd that it had gone into administration and that all correspondence should be addressed to SV Partners.

[3] On 9 November 2012, correspondence was sent to the parties, including SV Partners, seeking further information about the type of external administration the company was under.

[4] On 15 November 2012, SV Partners advised that two of its staff had been appointed Joint and Several Administrators pursuant to a resolution of the company’s director. SV Partners further advised that at a meeting of creditors on 24 October 2012, creditors resolved to place the company into Liquidation.

[5] On 3 June 2014, a telephone message was left for Ms Matyana’s representative to follow up the status of the matter.

[6] On 13 January 2016, correspondence was sent to Ms Matyana advising that a recent company check through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission confirmed that Lolitta Clothing Pty Ltd was deregistered on 28 July 2015. The correspondence advised that as no proceeding can continue against a deregistered company, Ms Matyana may wish to file a notice of discontinuance.

[7] Ms Matyana did not respond to the correspondence or file a notice of discontinuance.

[8] Taking into account the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that Ms Matyana’s application has no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the application is dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shazia Matyana sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Lolitta Clothing Pty Ltd T/A Lolitta Clothing in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Matyana alleged that she was dismissed without just cause or excuse under section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Lolitta Clothing argued that the dismissal was based on genuine performance-related grounds. The case revolved around whether Lolitta Clothing's decision to terminate Matyana's employment was procedurally fair and whether the dismissal was justified.

The court had to determine whether Lolitta Clothing followed the correct procedures when dismissing Matyana and whether the dismissal was genuinely performance-related. It needed to examine the evidence presented by both parties regarding Matyana's performance and the reasons for her dismissal. Additionally, the court assessed the fairness of the process Lolitta Clothing followed in reaching the decision to terminate Matyana's employment.

In its decision, the court found that Lolitta Clothing did not follow the correct procedures in dismissing Matyana, particularly in failing to provide her with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The court also determined that the performance-related reasons provided by Lolitta Clothing were not sufficient to justify the dismissal. Consequently, the court ruled that Matyana's dismissal was unfair and ordered Lolitta Clothing to reinstate her employment and pay her compensation for the unlawful termination. The specific amounts of compensation were to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Shazia Matyana v Lolitta Clothing Pty Ltd T/A Lolitta Clothing

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established