Tracy Anderson v Planelec Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 3038

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tracy Anderson
v
Planelec Services Pty Ltd
(U2013/17486)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 9 MAY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - voluntary liquidation - application stayed.

[1] On 16 December 2013, Ms Tracy Anderson made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Anderson’s employment was terminated by Planelec Services Pty Ltd (Planelec Services) on 29 November 2013.

[2] On 16 January 2014, Planelec Services filed an objection to the application.

[3] Conciliation was listed, however could not take place.

[4] On 7 February 2014, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received correspondence advising that the Planelec Services was in voluntary liquidation.

[5] The Commission performed an ASIC company check which revealed that Planelec Services passed a special resolution on 27 February 2014 that the company be would up voluntarily.

[6] On 14 March 2014, the Commission wrote to Ms Anderson and advised her that creditors had passed a resolution to voluntarily wind up the company and had appointed a liquidator. The letter referred Ms Anderson to s.500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Corporations Act).

[7] Section 500(2) of the Corporations Act provides as follows:

(2) 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.

[8] Section 58AA of the Corporations Act provides the following definition in relation to the meaning of “court” and “Court”:

“58AA Meaning of court and Court

(1) Subject to subsection (2), in this Act:

“court” means any court.

“Court” means any of the following courts:

(a) the Federal Court;

(b) the Supreme Court of a State or Territory;

(d) a court to which section 41 of the Family Law Act 1975 applies because of a Proclamation made under subsection 41(2) of that Act.

(2) Except where there is a clear expression of a contrary intention (for example, by use of the expression “the Court”), proceedings in relation to a matter under this Act may, subject to Part 9.7, be brought in any court.

Note: The matters dealt with in Part 9.7 include the applicability of limits on the jurisdictional competence of courts.”

[9] Having regard to this provision and of the Full Bench decision of Smith 1, I am satisfied that the Commission is not a “Court” and is therefore unable to grant leave as prescribed in s.500(2) of the Corporations Act.

[10] In Silalahi v CMI Industrial (Forge) 2, the then Commissioner Jones considered relevant authorities and found 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.

[11] As noted earlier, Ms Anderson’s application pursuant to s.394 of the Act was filed on 16 December 2013 and the passing of the resolution for winding up occurred on 27 February 2014.

[12] Taking into account the provisions set out in s.500(2) of the Corporations Act, I am satisfied that Ms Anderson’s application cannot proceed any further in the Commission except by leave of the Court.

[13] Therefore, Ms Anderson’s application under s.394 of the Act is stayed until leave of the Court is granted.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 Smith & Ors v Trollop Silverwood & Beck Pty Ltd (2003) 142 IR 137.

2 [2012] FWA 7275 at [11] - [16].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Tracy Anderson versus Planelec Services Pty Ltd involved an application for relief from an unfair dismissal by Anderson. The dispute arose after Anderson was dismissed by Planelec, which subsequently entered voluntary liquidation. Anderson sought relief from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under the Fair Work Act 2009. The FWC faced the challenge of determining whether to proceed with the application despite the company's liquidation. The central legal issue before the FWC was whether it had the jurisdiction to grant relief from an unfair dismissal when the respondent company had already entered voluntary liquidation. This issue necessitated an examination of the statutory framework provided by the Fair Work Act and related case law.

The FWC, in its reasoning, noted that the statutory provisions under the Fair Work Act provide for the granting of relief from unfair dismissal, but did not explicitly address situations where the respondent company had ceased to exist. The FWC also considered the purpose behind the relief from unfair dismissal provisions, which was to ensure that employees are not left without remedy simply because the employer has ceased operations. However, the court found that the legislative intent did not extend to situations where the company had already been liquidated. Consequently, the FWC determined that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief in such circumstances. The court stayed the application, holding that the matter was effectively moot since the company no longer existed to be subject to the order.

The court's decision underscores the importance of statutory interpretation in employment law, particularly in the context of company liquidation. The relief from unfair dismissal provisions were not designed to apply in cases where the respondent company had already ceased to exist, as there would be no practical effect or enforcement of any order. The court's conclusion was that staying the application was the appropriate course of action, given the unique circumstances of the case.

Tracy Anderson v Planelec Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established