Benchmark WA Industrial Relations Case Database

Cody Connell v Anthony Connell

[2026] FWC 1448 Fair Work Commission 2026-01-01
Source
Deputy President Beaumont
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Cody Connell
Respondent: Anthony Connell

Ratio

An unfair dismissal application was dismissed under s 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for want of prosecution where the applicant failed to attend a conciliation conference, made no contact with the Commission regarding non-attendance, and failed to respond to multiple emails providing opportunities to confirm they wished to proceed, demonstrating an unwillingness to participate in their own case and satisfying the requirement for procedural fairness.", "dissenting_judgements">None

Outcome

Against applicant dismissed

Authority signal

Not yet cited by other cases Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority, green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data, amber = caution, red = treated negatively.

Key facts · 10

  • Unfair dismissal application lodged 28 January 2026
  • Conciliation conference scheduled for 10 March 2026 via Microsoft Teams
  • Applicant did not attend the conciliation conference
  • Applicant did not contact the Commission before, during, or after the conference
  • Applicant did not seek adjournment or explain non-attendance
  • Email reminder sent 5 March 2026
  • SMS reminder sent 9 March 2026
  • First email from Chambers dated 20 April 2026 requesting response by 24 April 2026
  • Second email from Chambers dated 29 April 2026 requesting response by 6 May 2026
  • Applicant provided no response to either email

Factors

For
  • Applicant failed to attend scheduled conciliation conference without notice
  • Applicant made no contact with Commission regarding non-attendance
  • Applicant did not respond to 20 April 2026 email directing response by 24 April 2026
  • Applicant did not respond to 29 April 2026 email directing response by 6 May 2026
  • Applicant's conduct demonstrates unwillingness to participate in their own case
  • Applicant was on notice of consequences of non-response since 20 April 2026
  • Procedural fairness was afforded by multiple notices and opportunities to respond
Against

Legislation referenced

  • Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 394
  • Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 587
  • Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 587(3)(a)

Concept tags · 4

[P]Unfair dismissal (federal) [S]Procedural fairness at dismissal stage [S]Stay of proceedings [S]Time limits for filing

Principles · 3

articulates para 7
Section 587(3)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.
articulates para 8
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.
cites para 8 · from [2013] FWCFB 2532
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

Cases cited in this decision · 1

Cited
[2013] FWCFB 2532 — Northern Co-Operative Meat Company Ltd - Booyong Service Processing...
"…afforded procedural fairness. [8] 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...…"
Archived text (682 words)
1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Cody Connell v Anthony Connell (U2026/1572) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 8 MAY 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy — dismissal under s 587(3)(a) for want of prosecution [1] On 28 January 2026, Cody Connell (Applicant) lodged an unfair dismissal application (Application) under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) alleging that they were unfairly dismissed by Anthony Connell (Respondent). [2] On 18 February 2026, the Applicant and Respondent were sent a notice of listing for a conciliation conference to be conducted by Microsoft Teams before one of the Commission’s staff conciliators. The notice of listing detailed that the conciliation conference would occur at 10:15 AM Brisbane time on 10 March 2026 and provided a Microsoft Teams link for accessing the conciliation conference. The notice of listing also contained information about adjournment requests and provided a telephone number which parties could call in the event of any technical difficulties. [3] On 5 March 2026, the Applicant and Respondent were sent an email reminder with respect to the conciliation conference. The Applicant and Respondent were both sent an SMS on 9 March 2026, reminding them that their listed conciliation conference was scheduled for the next day. [4] The Applicant did not attend the conciliation conference scheduled for 10 March 2026. The Applicant did not contact the Commission before, during or after the conference to seek an adjournment, alert the Commission to any technical difficulties, or explain their non- attendance. [5] On 20 April 2026, my Chambers emailed the parties noting the Applicant’s non- attendance at the conciliation conference and directing the Applicant to inform Chambers by no later than 24 April 2026 whether they wished to proceed with the Application. The Applicant was warned that absent their response by 24 April 2026, I would likely dismiss the Application under s 587 of the Act without further notice. [2026] FWC 1448 DECISION AND ORDER [2026] FWC 1448 2 [6] On 29 April 2026, my Chambers sent a second email to the parties noting that the Applicant had not responded to the previous correspondence. The Applicant was afforded a further opportunity to demonstrate that they wished to pursue their Application. The Applicant was directed to inform Chambers whether they wished to pursue their Application by no later than Wednesday, 6 May 2026. To date, my Chambers has not received any communication from the Applicant. [7] Section 587 of the Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is apparent that an applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings that they commenced. Section 587(3)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness. [8] 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]). [9] I am satisfied that the Applicant’s conduct in failing to attend the conciliation conference scheduled for 10 March 2026, make any contact with the Commission concerning their non- attendance, or respond to the emails from my Chambers dated 20 April 2026 or 29 April 2026 demonstrates that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case. [10] The Applicant has been provided with the opportunity to inform the Commission that they wish to proceed with the Application and has been on notice since 20 April 2026 of the likely consequences if they did not do so. To date, the Commission has received no response. [11] For these reasons, I have decided to dismiss the application on my own initiative for want of prosecution, utilising the facility provided for by s 587(3)(a) of the Act. I make the following order: A. The application lodged by Cody Connell on 28 January 2026 for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR798972>