Simon Wills v Intensive Care at Home Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 3134

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Simon Wills
v

Intensive Care at Home Pty Ltd

(U2025/10571)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 20 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application to dismiss under s.587 for want of prosecution

On 26 June 2025, Mr Simon Wills applied to the Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The matter was listed twice for conciliation on 28 July 2025 and on 13 July 2025. On each occasion, Mr Wills failed to attend. On the first occasion, he contacted the Commission after the scheduled conciliation time to advise that he had experienced a ‘panic attack’ and had ‘severe mental health issues’. No medical evidence was provided to the Commission in connection with Mr Wills’ mental health condition. On the second occasion, Mr Wills contacted the Commission six minutes before the scheduled conciliation was due to commence to advise that he would not be attending due to mental health. Again, no medical evidence was provided.

On 2 September 2025, Directions were issued for Mr Wills to file his case by 16 September 2025. Mr Wills did not file any materials and did not contact the Commission to explain the omission. On the morning of 18 September 2025, Mr Wills was given until 4.00pm that day to file his materials but failed to do so.

On 18 September 2025, Intensive Care at Home Pty Ltd applied for the matter to be dismissed for want of prosecution. On 19 September 2025, the dismissal application was listed for hearing on 20 October 2025.

The matter proceeded to hearing on 20 October 2025. Mr Wills did not attend. Attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. In the circumstances, I decided to dismiss the application. My reasons are that Mr Wills has not taken any reasonable steps to progress his application since it was lodged on 26 June 2025. Other than general references to a mental health condition on and prior to 13 August 2025, Mr Wills has not contacted the Commission or responded to efforts to contact him, has not filed materials in accordance with directions issued, and in the circumstances, appears to have abandoned his claim.

Order

The application is dismissed under s.587 of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

No appearance for the Applicant.
P Hutzel for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2025.
Sydney (via MS Teams):
October 20.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Simon Wills v Intensive Care at Home Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Simon Wills, lodged an unfair dismissal claim against his employer on 26 June 2025. The application was listed twice for conciliation on 28 July and 13 August 2025, both of which Mr Wills failed to attend. He cited mental health issues as the reason for his absence, providing no medical evidence to support his claims. Despite being given further opportunities to file his case and to respond to the employer’s dismissal application, Mr Wills did not take any steps to progress his application. Intensive Care at Home Pty Ltd subsequently applied for the dismissal of the matter for want of prosecution. The case proceeded to hearing on 20 October 2025, at which Mr Wills did not attend, and attempts to contact him were unsuccessful.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Wills had taken reasonable steps to progress his unfair dismissal claim. The Commission had to consider Mr Wills’ references to mental health issues and his failure to comply with procedural directions. Given that Mr Wills had not filed any case materials and had not contacted the Commission after being provided with deadlines, the Commission found that he had not taken any reasonable steps to pursue his claim. The Commission concluded that Mr Wills appeared to have abandoned his claim.

In dismissing the application, the Commissioner noted that Mr Wills had failed to attend the scheduled conciliation meetings and had not provided any medical evidence to substantiate his mental health claims. The Commissioner also observed that Mr Wills had not responded to any efforts to contact him or to file materials in accordance with the directions issued. The Commissioner determined that Mr Wills had not taken reasonable steps to progress his application and, in the circumstances, had effectively abandoned his claim. The application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The final orders of the Commission were that the application be dismissed under section 587 of the Act. The dismissal of the application was due to the applicant’s failure to take reasonable steps to progress the claim and his apparent abandonment of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established