s.394 - Unfair dismissal

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - application dismissed

[1] Mr Syed Kazimi (Applicant) has made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy (the application).

[2] The Applicant advised on his Form F2 Application that he was dismissed on 5 December 2025, with his effective dismissal having occurred on 12 December 2025. He filed his application on 19 January 2026, some 38 days after his dismissal took effect. On 6 February 2026, I listed the matter for a case management conference and issued directions for the filing of submissions on the jurisdictional issue of the application being filed outside of the 21-day period provided for in s.394(2) of the Act (Jurisdictional Issue).

[3] The directions required the Applicant to file with the Commission and serve on Talent International (Vic) Pty Ltd by 4:00pm on 16 February 2026 an outline of submissions, signed witness statement and any evidence he will rely on in relation to the Jurisdictional Issue, which includes the following:

• The reason(s) for the delay;
• Whether the Applicant first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect;
• Any action taken to dispute the dismissal;
• If there is any prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay);
• The merits of the application; and
• Fairness as between the Applicant and any other persons in a similar position.

[4] The directions also contained the following note:

**"**A. Non-compliance: The Commissioner will not accept material that is filed late unless an extension has been granted by the Commissioner before it was due. Requests for an extension of time must be made in writing in a timely manner and specify substantial grounds. Parties must not assume an extension will be granted.

B. If you fail to comply with these Directions or attend the Hearing, the application may be dismissed or determined on whatever materials are before the Commission without further notice to you."

[5] The Applicant did not comply with the directions to file submissions by 4:00pm on 16 February 2026. Chambers sent a non-compliance email to the Applicant asking him to provide a response to Chambers by 4:00pm on 18 February 2026, and that in this response he must provide reasons as to why he had not complied with the directions issued on 9 February 2026. This email also drew the Applicant's attention to section 587 of the Act.

[6] A second non-compliance email was sent on 18 February 2026, again drawing the Applicant's attention to s.587 of the Act and that I intended to exercise my discretion pursuant to s.587 of the Act unless the Applicant provide clear reasoning to the contrary by 4.00pm on 20 February 2026.

[7] To date, the Applicant has not replied to these emails from Chambers and has not provided reasons as to why he has not complied with the directions.

(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

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

[9] The words, "Without limiting when the 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).

[10] I consider that as the Applicant has failed to prosecute his application, his application has no reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued shortly.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer