s.394 - Unfair dismissal

[1] Jeffrey Busch (the applicant) was employed by Webcentral Limited (the respondent) from the 18th of September 2020 until he was dismissed on the 10th of February 2023.

[2] On the 3rd of March 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[3] The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 - Employer's Response Form in this matter was Netregistry Pty Ltd.

[4] On the 17th of April 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 24th of April 2023. No response was received at this time.

[5] Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 26th of April 2023 and he was required to respond by 5:00pm the 1st of May 2023. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

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

[7] Section 587 of the Act provides:

(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

(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:

[8] The words, "W_ithout 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).

[9] In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[10] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer