• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

• An application alleging unfair dismissal was lodged in the Commission pursuant to section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (the document states: "WHEREAS an application was lodged in the Commission pursuant to section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979;").
• Pursuant to section 93(8) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, the Commission directed the Registrar to enquire into the application ("AND WHEREAS pursuant to s.93(8) the Commission directed the Registrar to enquire into the application;").
• A meeting of the parties was convened before a Deputy Registrar ("AND WHEREAS a meeting of the parties was convened before a Deputy Registrar;").
• The applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance in the Commission ("AND WHEREAS the applicant subsequently filed a Notice of Discontinuance in the Commission;").
• The Commissioner ordered that "the application be discontinued."

The document also records that there was "No appearance" for either the applicant or the respondent at the time of delivery. The short outcome line explicitly states: "Result Application alleging unfair dismissal discontinued."

Thus, the practical outcome recorded is a Commission order discontinuing the application following the filing of a Notice of Discontinuance by the applicant, after preliminary registrar procedures.

Why the court decided this way

The text of the order gives the factual and statutory basis for the decision. The Commission relied on statutory procedural mechanisms in the Industrial Relations Act 1979. Two sections are expressly referenced:

• Section 29: the statutory provision under which the application was lodged (the document states the application was "lodged in the Commission pursuant to section 29").
• Section 93(8): the statutory power used by the Commission to direct the Registrar to enquire into the application (the document states that "pursuant to s.93(8) the Commission directed the Registrar to enquire").

The decisive factual event recorded is that the applicant "subsequently filed a Notice of Discontinuance in the Commission." The order follows that factual sequence. On its face, the Commission's order is a procedural disposition: once the applicant filed the Notice of Discontinuance, the Commission made an order that the application be discontinued.

The document does not record any substantive adjudication about the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. It does not record submissions, findings on merit, reasons for discontinuance such as settlement terms, nor any orders about costs or ancillary relief. The reasoning, insofar as it is explicated in the order, is confined to the procedural sequence and the statutory authority for enquiry and disposition.

Before and after state of the law

The record in this file is succinct and does not purport to establish or reformulate legal doctrine beyond applying ordinary procedural practice. From the text we can observe the following "before and after" posture limited to this administrative context:

• Before: An applicant had invoked the Commission's jurisdiction under s.29 by lodging an unfair dismissal application.
• During: The Commission exercised its procedural power under s.93(8) by directing the Registrar to enquire and convened a meeting before a Deputy Registrar.
• After: The applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance and the Commission ordered the application discontinued.

The document does not announce any novel rule of law or interpretive guidance on the scope of s.29 or s.93(8). It records an ordinary procedural result: an application is discontinued following the applicant's Notice of Discontinuance, with the order formally recorded by the Commissioner. Any change "to the law" is therefore of a purely procedural character specific to the case, namely that the Commission exercised its procedural authority to record discontinuance where the applicant discontinued the matter.

Because the order lacks substantive reasoning or extended discussion, it should be read as a procedural disposition rather than a precedent that alters legal principles.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The judgment is short; these are the key passages and straightforward translations.

1. "WHEREAS an application was lodged in the Commission pursuant to section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979;"

   • Plain English: The applicant started an unfair dismissal case in the Commission under the statutory procedure in section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979.

2. "AND WHEREAS pursuant to s.93(8) the Commission directed the Registrar to enquire into the application;"

   • Plain English: Using the powers in s.93(8), the Commission asked the Registrar to look into the case and take any standard steps a Registrar would take.

3. "AND WHEREAS a meeting of the parties was convened before a Deputy Registrar;"

   • Plain English: The Registrar (or the Deputy Registrar) called a meeting between the parties as part of the Registrar's enquiries or case management.

4. "AND WHEREAS the applicant subsequently filed a Notice of Discontinuance in the Commission;"

   • Plain English: The claimant filed a formal notice saying they no longer wished to continue the claim.

5. "THAT the application be discontinued."

   • Plain English: The Commission formally ended the proceeding and recorded that the application is discontinued.

6. "Result Application alleging unfair dismissal discontinued."

   • Plain English: The case (an unfair dismissal claim) has been discontinued, as recorded by the Commission.

Each of these passages is procedural and factual rather than a statement of legislative interpretation or legal principle beyond the ordinary meaning of discontinuance.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is a procedural order and, read narrowly, its application is limited to similar registrar-stage circumstances. The fact pattern that would trigger a like order is:

• An application has been lodged in the WA Industrial Relations Commission under s.29 (for example, an unfair dismissal application).
• The Commission uses s.93(8) to direct the Registrar to enquire into the application and a meeting or case-management step occurs before a Registrar or Deputy Registrar.
• The applicant files a formal Notice of Discontinuance with the Commission.
• There are no recorded appearances at the time the order is delivered.

Where those facts are present, the Commission may make an order discontinuing the application, and a brief written order such as the one here would be the typical form of disposition.

Because the document does not address costs, orders by consent, or the effect on possible rights to re-lodge, the "precedent" value is limited to recording that the Commission will formalise discontinuance where the applicant files the notice.

How later courts have treated it

The text of this order does not cite any later or prior authority, and the document itself does not discuss subsequent treatment by other courts or tribunals. The header notes a "Last Updated: 5 July 2007" but that is an administrative metadata entry and does not reflect any extended judicial discussion within the body of the order.

Accordingly, this file does not provide any material on subsequent judicial treatment or citation history. Any research into later judicial treatment or citation would need to be performed in an external legal database; the order itself contains no such references or discussion.

Still-open questions

The order records the procedural steps and the discontinuance, but it leaves several factual and legal questions unanswered in the record. These are matters a practitioner would typically want to check from the primary file or through parties:

• Why was the Notice of Discontinuance filed? The order does not state whether the filing followed settlement, withdrawal on merits, procedural deficiency, or other reasons.
• Were there any terms agreed between the parties (for example, settlement terms, payments, or confidentiality) that are not recorded in the order?
• Were there any orders about costs, confidentiality, or non-derogation recorded elsewhere? The order contains no costs direction.
• Does the Notice of Discontinuance operate with prejudice to re-lodgement of the same claim, or are there procedural bars that might prevent re-filing? The order does not address these effects.
• What is the formal date of discontinuance (the document records delivery date 11 December 2001, but parties or registry records may show the effective date for procedural timelines)?
• Was the Notice of Discontinuance properly signed and filed in accordance with the Commission's rules or practice directions? The order records that a Notice was filed, but contains no procedural adjudication about the formality of that Notice.

A practitioner or party seeking to rely on or respond to this order would normally check the Commission's file for the filed Notice of Discontinuance itself, any associated correspondence, any Registrar or Deputy Registrar notes of the convened meeting, and any separate minute or consent order recording terms. Those materials are not contained in this short order.

Closing reminder: This analysis explains what the order records and identifies questions or factual gaps evident from the text. It is general legal information based solely on the provided document. It is not legal advice. I can make mistakes. Before you act on, rely on, or file anything based on this, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.