Victoria Wray v Arete Executive

Case [2022] FWC 2795


[2022] FWC 2795

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Victoria Wray
v

Arete Executive

(U2022/7782)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 18 OCTOBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Victoria Wray (the applicant) was employed by Austinmer Arete Executive (the respondent) from the 7th of June 2021 until she was dismissed on the 5th of July 2022.

  1. On the 25th of July 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  2. The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Arete Executive Pty Ltd.

  3. On the 14th of September 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 21st of September 2022. No response was received at this time.

  4. Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 23rd of September 2022 and she was required to respond by the 5:00pm 27th of September 2022. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised her application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  5. To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

  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

<PR746952>

Details
AGLC
Victoria Wray v Arete Executive [2022] FWC 2795
Case
[2022] FWC 2795
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Victoria Wray lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against her former employer Arete Executive under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Wray was employed by the respondent from 7 June 2021 until she was dismissed on 5 July 2022. The application was made on 25 July 2022. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine the application and any other related issues.
The Commission was required to consider the respondent’s submissions about the application being frivolous or vexatious, or having no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission also considered whether it could dismiss the application under section 587 of the Act. The Commission found that it could dismiss the application under section 587(3)(a) on its own initiative.
In reaching this decision, the Commission noted that the applicant had failed to respond to correspondence from the Commission about a discrepancy in the legal business name of the respondent. This was despite multiple opportunities to respond and warnings that the application would be dismissed without notice if no response was received. The Commission found that the application had not been made in accordance with the Act, and that the applicant had not responded to any correspondence sent by the Commission. It was for these reasons that the Commission decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution.
The Commission made an order that the application be dismissed. This was pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The order will be issued with this decision.

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.