Wade Leonard v Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau Inc

[2025] FWC 1257

[2025] FWC 1257

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Wade Leonard
v

Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau Inc

(U2025/2527)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN MELBOURNE, 5 MAY 2025

Application under s 399A – failure to comply with directions – application granted

1. The following is an edited version of a decision delivered on transcript on 2 May 2025. Wade Leonard (applicant) has made an unfair dismissal application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). On 4 April 2025, I issued directions that the applicant file an outline of argument, statements of evidence and a document list by 22 April 2025. He failed to do so. On 23 April 2025, I wrote to the applicant and noted that his materials were overdue. He did not reply. On 30 April 2025, I listed the matter for a non-compliance hearing on 2 May 2025. The same day, Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau (respondent) made an application under s 399A for the unfair dismissal application to be dismissed, on the ground that the applicant had not complied with directions. I advised the parties that I would consider the s 399A application at the non-compliance hearing on 2 May 2025. The notice of listing stated that the parties were required to attend the non-compliance hearing and that s 600 of the Act allows the Commission to determine a matter in the absence of a person who was required to attend before it. The applicant failed to attend the non-compliance hearing.

1. Section 399A states that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is satisfied that the applicant in an unfair dismissal matter has unreasonably failed to attend a conference or hearing held by the Commission or has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction of the Commission relating to the application (s 399A(1)(a) and (b)). The applicant failed to comply with my directions of 4 April 2025. He has now also failed to attend the non-compliance hearing despite being required to do so. The applicant has provided no explanation for these failings. I conclude that they were unreasonable. The discretion in s 399A is enlivened. It is appropriate to exercise it. The applicant has failed to engage with his own application. A further discretionary consideration is that the applicant’s contention that he was forced to resign appears to be manifestly unsubstantiated. The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

No appearance for the applicant
D. Hargreave and R. Pattison for the respondent

Hearing details:

2025
Melbourne (by Microsoft Teams)
2 May

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR787027