Tanya Murphy v Murray House Wentworth Aged Care Ltd T/A Murray House

Case [2023] FWC 2988


[2023] FWC 2988

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tanya Murphy
v

Murray House Wentworth Aged Care Ltd T/A Murray House

(U2023/9042)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE

SYDNEY, 15 NOVEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Overview

  1. On 19 September 2023, Ms Tanya Murphy (Applicant) filed an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) with the Fair Work Commission (Commission), being an application for an unfair dismissal remedy (Application). The Respondent to the Application is Murray House Wentworth Aged Care Ltd T/A Murray House.

  1. Direction [2] of the Directions issued on 30 October 2023 reads:

[2] By 4.00pm AEDT on Monday, 13 November 2023, the Applicant must file with the Commission and serve on the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in support of their application.”

  1. The Applicant did not comply with Direction [2].

  1. On 14 November 2023, at 10:32am AEDT, the following email (Show Cause Email) was sent to the Applicant:

“Dear Ms Murphy

Re: U2023/9042 - Tanya Murphy v Murray House Wentworth Aged Care Ltd T/A Murray House

I refer to the matter above.

Background

On 30 October 2023, the Fair Work Commission issued Directions in this matter.
Orders [2] of those directions read as follows:

[2]          By 4.00pm AEDT on Monday, 13 November 2023, the Applicant must file with the Commission and serve on the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in support of their application.

To date, Chambers has not received any materials in compliance with Order [2].

Further directions regarding show cause

In view of the foregoing, the Deputy President directs as follows:

[1]          The Applicant is to file with the Commission, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions regarding their non-compliance with directions. Further, the Applicant is to make submissions as to why this matter should not be dismissed. The Applicant is to comply with this Direction by no later than 4:00pm AEDT Today, 14 November 2023.

[2]          If the Applicant does not comply with Order [1] above, or if the Deputy President is not satisfied by the Applicant’s submissions, the matter may be dismissed without further notice.

Yours faithfully

[Associate]”

  1. The Applicant has made no response to the Show Cause Email.

Legislative Provisions

  1. Section 587 of the Act reads:

“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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2)      Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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)The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)on its own initiative; or

(b)on application.”

  1. In Rebecca Tomas v Symbian Health [2011] FWA 5458, Commissioner Gooley stated the following with respect to the operation of s.587 of the Act:

“[57] Section 587 gives [the Fair Work Commission] the power to dismiss a matter. Section 587(a), (b) and do not limit [the Fair Work Commission’s] power to dismiss matters for other reasons.”

Consideration

  1. As the Applicant has made no attempt to comply with Direction [2] and/or the Show Cause Email, and has failed to contact the Commission or otherwise explain their non-compliance, I have decided to dismiss their Application.

  1. In dismissing the Applicant’s Application, I find that the Applicant’s non-compliance with Direction [2] and the Show Cause Email to be wholly unexplained, and wholly unsatisfactory.

  1. Pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act, the Application is dismissed for want of prosecution. An Order dismissing the Application will be published contemporaneously with this decision.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR768301>

Details
AGLC
Tanya Murphy v Murray House Wentworth Aged Care Ltd T/A Murray House [2023] FWC 2988
Case
[2023] FWC 2988
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tanya Murphy filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against Murray House Wentworth Aged Care Ltd T/A Murray House before the Fair Work Commission. The application was made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant alleged unfair dismissal, but failed to comply with a direction from the Commission to submit an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any supporting documents by a specified deadline. The Commission issued a show cause email, but the applicant did not respond.

The court needed to decide whether the application should be dismissed for non-compliance with the Commission's directions. The legal issue was whether the Fair Work Commission could dismiss the application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. Section 587(1)(a) of the Act provides that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, and section 587(3)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

The Deputy President found that the applicant's non-compliance with the directions was wholly unsatisfactory and unexplained. The Deputy President decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The decision was made because the applicant failed to comply with the directions and the show cause email, and did not contact the Commission or explain the non-compliance.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal remedy. The decision was made pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act, and an order dismissing the application was published contemporaneously with the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.