Stefanie Hunt v Angel's Paradise Pty Ltd

[2023] FWC 2027

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stefanie Hunt
v

Angel’s Paradise Pty Ltd

(U2023/5189)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 AUGUST 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Stefanie Hunt (the applicant) began employment with Angel’s Paradise Pty Ltd (the respondent) on the 10^th of October 2022 and was allegedly dismissed on the 29^th of April 2023.
On the 12^th of June 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Angel's Paradise Long Day Care Centre.
On the 13^th of July 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 20^th of July 2023. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 21^st of July 2023, and she was required to respond by the 25^th of July 2023 at 5:00pm. It was in this correspondence the applicant was notified that if no response was received, her application would be dismissed without any further notice.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

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.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

The words, “Without limiting when 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)(a), (b) and (c).

In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Stefanie Hunt filed an application for unfair dismissal against Angel's Paradise Pty Ltd, which operates as Angel's Paradise Long Day Care Centre. Ms Hunt alleged that she was dismissed on 29 April 2023 after beginning employment with the respondent on 10 October 2022. The Commission was asked to consider whether the dismissal was unfair under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application was filed on 12 June 2023.
The Commission was required to decide whether to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. Ms Hunt did not respond to two correspondences from the Commission's Chambers. The first correspondence was sent on 13 July 2023 and required a response by 20 July 2023. The second correspondence was sent on 21 July 2023 and required a response by 25 July 2023 at 5pm. The second correspondence notified Ms Hunt that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of her application without further notice. The Commission considered whether it had jurisdiction to dismiss the application, and whether it was appropriate to do so. The Commission found that s.587(1) of the Act provided that the Commission may dismiss an application if, among other things, it was not made in accordance with the Act, was frivolous or vexatious, or had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission found that the words, “Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application” at the beginning of s.587(1) established that the Commission's jurisdiction to dismiss an application was not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c). The Commission found that the application was filed in accordance with the Act, but that Ms Hunt had failed to respond to two correspondences from the Commission's Chambers. The Commission found that this constituted a want of prosecution, and dismissed the application.
The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed for want of prosecution, and that the matter be removed from the list.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established