Trent Adams v Josh Virgo T/A Get Laid Tiling Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 5228

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Trent Adams
v
Josh Virgo T/A Get Laid Tiling Pty Ltd
(U2013/7010)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 1 AUGUST 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - Respondent deregistered - no reasonable prospects of success - application dismissed.

[1] On 4 July 2013, Deputy President Gooley issued a decision 1 in relation to Mr Adams’ application for remedy from unfair dismissal.

[2] The Deputy President’s decision stayed Mr Adams’ application on the basis that Josh Virgo T/A Get Laid Tiling Pty Ltd (Get Laid Tiling) was in liquidation and pursuant to s.500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001, Mr Adams’ application was not able to proceed except with leave of the Court. 2

[3] An ASIC insolvency search was conducted on 23 July 2014 and disclosed that Get Laid Tiling was deregistered on 26 January 2014.

[4] On 23 July 2014, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) wrote to Mr Adams and advised him of Get Laid Tiling’s deregistration. The Commission further advised that no proceeding can continue against a company which is deregistered. Mr Adams was given an opportunity to file a notice of discontinuance. He did not respond to the correspondence or file a notice of discontinuance.

[5] Taking into account the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that Mr Adams’ application has no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

COMMISSIONER

1 [2013] FWC 4414.

2 Ibid at [16].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trent Adams sought relief from an unfair dismissal, contending that his termination by Josh Virgo trading as Get Laid Tiling Pty Ltd was unjust. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where Virgo, the respondent, had since been deregistered. The crux of the dispute revolved around whether Virgo's deregistration rendered the application moot, and if there were reasonable prospects of success for Adams to reinstate his employment or obtain compensation.

The court was tasked with determining whether Adams' application could proceed given that the respondent had been deregistered, and whether there were sufficient grounds to grant relief. This included an assessment of whether Virgo's deregistration had any impact on the enforceability of any potential orders, and whether Adams had a reasonable prospect of successfully arguing his case against Virgo.

In its ruling, the Commission noted that the deregistration of Virgo did not automatically dismiss Adams' application, but it did significantly impact the likelihood of success. The Commission considered that deregistration could impede the enforcement of any potential orders made in Adams' favour. After weighing the evidence and arguments presented, the Commission concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success for Adams, given the respondent's deregistration and the current state of the case. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed, with no orders for costs made against either party.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established