Stefan Papadopoulos v Stefan Papadopoulos

[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.

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.’

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.

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

To date Mr Papadopoulos has not provided any response.

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.”

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).

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]).

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.

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

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

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.

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stefan Papadopoulos filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against himself, apparently due to a clerical error, naming himself as the respondent. The Fair Work Commission considered the matter and determined that the application had no reasonable prospects of success due to the applicant's failure to respond to multiple attempts to contact him and provide clarification regarding the identity of the respondent. The Commission concluded that the applicant had not intended to prosecute his application and dismissed the application on its own initiative under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The key legal issue the Commission had to decide was whether the application should be dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act due to the lack of prosecution and the absence of reasonable prospects of success. The Commission noted that section 587 of the Act grants the authority to dismiss an application if it has no reasonable prospects of success and if the applicant has ceased to pursue or participate in the proceedings. The Commission considered that the applicant had been on notice of the likely consequences of his lack of response and had failed to provide any information requested by the Commission. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed it on its own initiative.

In reaching its decision, the Commission relied on the authority of Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532, which established that the Commission is not required to persevere with an application if it is apparent that the applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings. The Commission found that Mr Papadopoulos had demonstrated a lack of intent to prosecute his application by not responding to multiple attempts to contact him and provide clarification regarding the identity of the respondent. The Commission also noted that Mr Papadopoulos had been specifically invited to provide the correct legal name of his former employer on 4 December 2024, but no response was received. As a result, the Commission dismissed the application for want of prosecution and made an order to this effect.

The Commission's decision was based on the applicant's failure to respond to multiple attempts to contact him and provide clarification regarding the identity of the respondent. The Commission concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success due to the applicant's lack of contact with the Commission. The Commission dismissed the application on its own initiative under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 and made an order to this effect (PR783163).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established