Teale Meredith v Downsouth Dreamcatchers Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 42

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Teale Meredith
v

Downsouth Dreamcatchers Pty Ltd

(U2024/12106)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT

PERTH, 6 JANUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy remedy – incomplete application – application is not made in accordance with this Act – application dismissed under s.587.

On 10 October 2024, Miss Teale Meredith made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Miss Meredith’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

The application form filed by Miss Meredith was incomplete because the effective date of dismissal was not specified.

Commission staff attempted to contact Miss Meredith on the following dates:

· 15 October 2024 by telephone and email; and
· 7 November 2024 by telephone.

Miss Meredith responded to a telephone call made by Commission Staff and advised that she was seeking legal advice as to whether she would progress her matter.

Miss Meredith has been on notice since 15 October 2024 of the likely consequences of her application remaining incomplete.

No satisfactory response has been received from Miss Meredith.

Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

“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.”

Miss Meredith’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s 587(1)(a)) because the application was incomplete. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss the application.

I am satisfied that Miss Meredith has had the opportunity to put her case for consideration on all matters material to the making of the decision to dismiss her application under s 587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein). Miss Meredith has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application, however the Commission’s inquiries and warnings have been ignored.

I have separately made an order dismissing Miss Meredith’s application (PR783023)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide whether Miss Teale Meredith’s application for unfair dismissal against her former employer, Downsouth Dreamcatchers Pty Ltd, should be dismissed. The application was made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the Deputy President of the Commission, Beaumont, issued the decision on 6 January 2025 in Perth. The key issue before the court was whether Miss Meredith’s application was compliant with the requirements of the Act, specifically whether it was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The application for unfair dismissal was dismissed because it was incomplete. The effective date of dismissal was not specified in the application, which is a critical piece of information necessary for the court to properly consider the matter. The Commission had attempted to contact Miss Meredith multiple times to address the incomplete application but did not receive a satisfactory response. Despite being informed of the potential consequences of not completing the application on 15 October 2024, Miss Meredith did not rectify the deficiency. Under section 587 of the Act, the Commission has the discretion to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. The Deputy President found that Miss Meredith had been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency but chose not to do so, leading to the dismissal of her application.

The court exercised its discretion under section 587 of the Act to dismiss the application. It was noted that Miss Meredith had been on notice since 15 October 2024 of the likely consequences of her incomplete application. The court considered that Miss Meredith had been given sufficient opportunity to present a complete application but had failed to do so. As a result, the application was dismissed. A separate order was made dismissing the application under PR783023.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established