Trinity Kirkman v Gong Investments Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 3177


[2022] FWC 3177

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Trinity Kirkman
v

Gong Investments Pty Ltd

(U2022/10873)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 1 DECEMBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Trinity Kirkman (the applicant) was employed by Gong Investments Pty Ltd (the respondent) from September 2017 until she was dismissed on the 12th of October 2022.

  1. On the 13th of November 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. According to the respondent’s F3 – Employer’s Response Form, the application was lodged 25 days out of time.

  2. On the 18th of November 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and she was required to respond by the 23rd of November 2022.

  3. On the 24th of November 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing her to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 28th of November 2022. She was advised that in the absence of a reply, her application may be dismissed.

  1. To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides:

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.

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

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

  1. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748477>

Details
AGLC
Trinity Kirkman v Gong Investments Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 3177
Case
[2022] FWC 3177
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Trinity Kirkman versus Gong Investments Pty Ltd, the applicant, Trinity Kirkman, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal after being dismissed from her employment by the respondent, Gong Investments Pty Ltd. The application was made under Section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, however, it was lodged 25 days out of time. The respondent raised this issue and requested a response from the applicant by specified deadlines, which the applicant failed to meet. The matter was brought before Vice President Catanzariti, who considered whether to dismiss the application for being lodged outside the prescribed time period and for want of prosecution.

The central legal issue was whether the Commission had the authority to dismiss the application for being lodged out of time and for the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence regarding the application. The relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 were examined, specifically Section 587, which outlines the circumstances under which the Fair Work Commission may dismiss an application. The Vice President noted that Section 587(1) of the Act explicitly states that the Commission's jurisdiction to dismiss an application is not limited to the specific circumstances listed in the subsections. Therefore, the Commission could dismiss the application on the basis of it being lodged outside the prescribed time and for the applicant's lack of response to correspondence.

Based on the above, Vice President Catanzariti decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution in accordance with Section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The Vice President concluded that the application did not meet the requirements of the Act and, due to the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence, the application was dismissed. An order will be issued with this decision, finalising the dismissal of the application.

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.