Zongli Li v Foxville Projects Group (NSW) Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 1992

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Zongli Li
v

Foxville Projects Group (NSW) Pty Ltd

(U2024/15168)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 JULY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 for want of prosecution.

On 17 December 2024, Mr Zongli Li made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Li’s application raised a concern about, in the first instance that Foxville Projects Group (NSW) Pty Ltd being in administration and at later date, about liquidation.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr Li on 10 February, 11 March and 16 June 2025 about this concern. Mr Li has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative for want of prosecution. If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

I am satisfied that Mr Li has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Li’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Zongli Li on 17 December 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zongli Li sought relief from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging unfair dismissal by Foxville Projects Group (NSW) Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from Mr Li's employment termination, with subsequent developments involving the respondent company entering administration and later liquidation. The FWC was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unjust and, if so, what remedies were appropriate.

The legal issues before the FWC included whether Mr Li had abandoned his application for unfair dismissal and if the Commission had grounds to dismiss the application under section 587 for want of prosecution. The central question was whether Mr Li's failure to respond to the Commission's attempts to contact him constituted a lack of willingness to proceed with his case.

Deputy President Easton reviewed the circumstances and noted that Mr Li had not responded to the Commission's correspondence on three separate occasions. The Deputy President concluded that Mr Li's non-response indicated a lack of interest or willingness to participate in the proceedings. As such, the Deputy President found it appropriate to dismiss the application under section 587 of the Act. The decision was based on the precedent set in Viavattene v Health Care Australia, which established that the Commission is not obligated to continue with an application if the applicant demonstrates a clear disinterest in pursuing it.

In light of the findings, the FWC dismissed Mr Li's application for unfair dismissal. The Deputy President issued an order stating that the application made by Mr Zongli Li on 17 December 2024 was dismissed under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This decision effectively concluded the proceedings, leaving no further avenues for Mr Li to seek relief in this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established