| [2025] FWC 1793 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Tony Taouk
v
Civil Labour Hire Pty Ltd
(U2023/13084)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL | MELBOURNE, 25 JUNE 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – voluntary liquidation – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative – application has no reasonable prospects of success.
On 24 December 2023 Mr Tony Taouk applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, naming Civil Labour Hire Pty Ltd as the Respondent.
On 18 January 2024 the Commission received an email from Mr Laba of Raft Consulting advising that the Respondent had entered voluntary liquidation on 19 December 2023 and attaching the ASIC Form 505. On 18 January 2024, the Liquidator informed the Commission that there had been a resolution of creditors to voluntarily wind up the company.
The matter was allocated to Deputy President Clancy and on 14 February 2024 his Chambers emailed Mr Taouk, advising him of these developments. Mr Taouk was referred to s.500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 which provides that “After the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up, no action or other civil proceeding is to be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court imposes.” The Applicant was advised that his application could not proceed unless he obtained leave of the Court and was asked to confirm by Friday, 24 May 2024, whether he intended to seek leave of the Court.
On 15 February 2024, Mr Taouk emailed Deputy President Clancy’s chambers advising that he intended to apply for leave of the Court.
On 22 February 2024, Deputy President Clancy issued a decision staying the matter, notifying Mr Taouk that “No further action will be taken with respect to the matter until such time as the Commission is notified that leave of the Court has successfully been obtained.”
On 24 February 2025, my Chambers sent correspondence to Mr Taouk requesting that he provide an update on whether he had, or intended to seek, leave of the Court and advising that, if no response was received by 4 March 2025, his application may be dismissed.
No response was received by 4 March and on 11 March 2025, my Chambers called Mr Taouk. Mr Taouk advised that he still intended to seek leave of the Court and would like the matter to remain open.
On 6 June 2025, my Chambers emailed Mr Taouk requesting that he provide an update to the Commission by 13 June 2025 on whether he had sought, or would be seeking, leave of the Court. Mr Taouk was advised that if he failed to do so, his application may be dismissed without further notice. No response was provided by Mr Taouk.
It is well-established that the Commission is not a Court and is therefore unable to grant the leave required under s.500(2) of the Corporations Act.[1] I am also satisfied that an application pursuant to s.394 of the Act falls within the meaning of “civil proceedings” in s.500(2) of the Corporations Act.[2] I am satisfied that Mr Taouk’s application cannot proceed any further with the Commission except by leave of the Court.
I consider it appropriate to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. I do so on the basis that I consider the application has no reasonable prospects of success. The Applicant has been on notice for an extended period of a significant obstacle that prevents them from continuing their case – the need to obtain leave of a Court under s.500(2) of the Corporations Act. Accordingly, I dismiss Mr Taouk’s application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. I make the following order:
1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Tony Taouk on 24 December 2023 is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] Smith v Trollope Silverwood & Beck Pty Ltd (2003) 142 IR 137.
[2] Silalahi v CMI Industrial (Forge) [2012] FWA 7275 at [11]-[16].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR788531>
- AGLC
- Tony Taouk v Civil Labour Hire Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1793
- Case
- [2025] FWC 1793
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to this case involved whether the Commission had the authority to grant leave of the Court under section 500(2) of the Corporations Act, and whether the application for unfair dismissal could proceed without such leave. It was established that the Fair Work Commission lacks the jurisdiction to grant the required leave, and that the application for unfair dismissal falls within the definition of "civil proceedings" under section 500(2) of the Corporations Act. Consequently, the Commission was unable to proceed with Mr Taouk’s application without leave from the Court.
Deputy President O’Neill, after considering the relevant legal frameworks and the inability of the Commission to grant leave, dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act. The decision was based on the assessment that Mr Taouk's application had no reasonable prospects of success due to the significant obstacle of needing Court leave. The dismissal was made with the understanding that Mr Taouk had been aware for an extended period of this requirement, yet had not sought the necessary leave.
In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission dismissed Mr Tony Taouk's application for unfair dismissal, as it was contingent on obtaining leave from the Court under section 500(2) of the Corporations Act, which the Commission could not provide. The order was made on 25 June 2025, effectively ending Mr Taouk's application for unfair dismissal.
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.