Stefan Papadopoulos v Stefan Papadopoulos

[2025] FWC 91

[2025] FWC 91

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stefan Papadopoulos
v

Stefan Papadopoulos

(U2024/12042)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 10 JANUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – lack of prosecution – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

1. On 9 October 2024, Mr Stefan Papadopoulos made an unfair dismissal application (the Application) to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).  The Application appeared to contain an error, such that it named as the Respondent ‘Stefan Papadopoulos’.  However, the contact details of the Respondent, as articulated in the Application, were ‘Uber Pacific Pty Ltd.’

1. Commission staff have tried to contact Mr Papadopoulos on the following dates:

a)   17 October 2024 by telephone and email; and

b)   27 November 2024 by telephone.

1. Commission staff sought further information from Mr Papadopoulos to clarify the name of the Respondent. 

1. To date Mr Papadopoulos has not provided any response.

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.

…

(3)       The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)       on its own initiative; or

(b)       on application.”

1. 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).

1. Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is apparent that an applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings they commenced. In such circumstances, 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 that Mr Papadopoulos has demonstrated that he does not intend to prosecute his Application. Mr Papadopoulos has failed to provide the information requested and has not responded to multiple attempts to contact him.

1. On 4 December 2024, Mr Papadopoulos was specifically invited to provide the correct legal name of his former employer.  No response was received.

1. Mr Papadopoulos has been on notice of the likely consequence for his Application if he does not respond. No response has been received.

1. In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the Application on my own initiative pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act for want of prosecution, it being evident that the Application has no prospects of success given Mr Papadopoulos’ lack of contact with this Commission.

1. I have separately made an order to this effect (PR783163).

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR783162>