• [10] It is well established that section 587 of the Act can be utilised on the Commission's own initiative to dismiss a matter for want of prosecution. The Commission is not required to persevere with an application where an Applicant's conduct clearly demonstrates that they are unwilling to participate in their own case.[1]

[11] The Commission is required to provide the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to advance their case, but not an infinite opportunity. The Applicant in this case failed, without explanation, to attend a conference in relation to his application. He has thereafter failed, again without explanation, to engage with the Commission's efforts to clarify his intentions with respect to pursuing it. It therefore appears on the basis of facts known at this time that the Applicant has stopped participating in the proceeding and does not intend to prosecute his application. I am satisfied that the Applicant was afforded ample opportunity to prosecute his case before the Commission but has failed to do so.

[12] Having considered the provisions set out in s.587 of the Act and the factual circumstances of the case I am satisfied it is appropriate for the application to be dismissed.

[13] Accordingly, I order that Mr Moore's application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal is dismissed pursuant to s. 587(3)(a) of the Act.

[1] Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]- [16].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer