1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying Application by Mrs Ingrid Stonhill (AB2024/873) COMMISSIONER RIORDAN SYDNEY, 30 OCTOBER 2025 Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – application dismissed [1] On 16 November 2024, Mrs Ingrid Stonhill (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an order to stop bullying under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). [2] Mrs Stonhill is the Chief Executive Officer of the Katherine Town Council. The Person Named in the application is a former Councillor of the Katherine Town Council, Ms Amanda Kingdon. Ms Kingdon was an elected Councillor at the time the Applicant brought her application. [3] The application was the subject of a jurisdictional decision1 in June of this year, which was appealed by Ms Kingdon. Ms Kingdon was refused permission to appeal by a Full Bench of the Commission in a decision dated 4 August 2025.2 [4] On 11 August 2025, I issued Directions and a Notice of Listing for a Hearing of the substantive application to be conducted on 6 October 2025. [5] Whilst the directions were on foot, Ms Kingdon made a request that the Commission assist the parties in reaching a resolution to avoid the requirement for a formal hearing. [6] After seeking the views of the parties, I directed that the parties attend a Member Assisted Conciliation (MAC) before another Member of the Commission. Commissioner Simpson agreed to facilitate a MAC in this matter. [7] Commissioner Simpson’s Chambers issued a Notice of Listing on 28 August 2025 for a MAC to take place on 10 September 2025. [8] On 29 August 2025, Ms Kingdon emailed Commissioner Simpson’s Chambers to advise that she would no longer be continuing as an Elected Member of Council as she had not been re-elected. Ms Kingdon sought that the application be dismissed accordingly. Ms Kingdon sent further correspondence to this effect on 4 September 2025 and sought to withdraw from the Commission’s processes. [2025] FWC 2940 DECISION [2025] FWC 2940 2 [9] On 5 September 2025, the Applicant wrote to my Chambers to advise that whilst Ms Kingdon had not been re-elected, the Applicant held concerns that she would continue to be bullied by Ms Kingdon from the community and therefore sought to proceed with her s.789FC application. [10] As I was on a period of leave at this time, I was unable to receive or review the parties’ correspondence in relation to the status of the matter. [11] The scheduled MAC proceeded before Commissioner Simpson on 10 September 2025. At the MAC, Ms Kingdon gave an undertaking on record as follows: “I, Amanda Kingdon, whilst not conceding that I have engaged in any bullying conduct of Mrs Ingrid Stonhill as defined in section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009, undertake that I will refrain from making any adverse statements or comments about Mrs Ingrid Stonhill of any form, and including in relation to her performance of her role as the chief executive officer of the Katherine Town Council. Further, I undertake that my refraining from making any such adverse statements or comments will include any comments in the public domain and any adverse statements or comments on any form of social media and/or electronic communication. I will also refrain from making any direct contact with Mrs Ingrid Stonhill either in person or via any other means.” [12] Commissioner Simpson’s Chambers provided a copy of the transcript from the MAC to my Chambers. I have taken Ms Kingdon’s undertaking, as provided on record and transcribed, into account. I thank Commissioner Simpson for his assistance in this matter. [13] During my period of leave, the Applicant also raised a request that the Hearing of 6 October 2025 be adjourned in light of a pre-planned period of leave. [14] Following my return from leave, subject to a review of the file, I wrote to the Applicant and Ms Kingdon on 29 September 2025 providing my preliminary view that, on the basis of the undertaking provided by Ms Kingdon, and the fact that Ms Kingdon was no longer an elected Member of Council, the application should be dismissed. I invited any submissions from the parties in response to my preliminary view, by close of business on 7 October 2025. The Hearing date of 6 October 2025 was vacated on this basis. [15] Both the Applicant and Ms Kingdon provided brief written submissions to my Chambers as requested. I have taken those submissions into account. Relevant Legislation [16] Section 587 of the Act provides: “587 Dismissing applications (1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if: [2025] FWC 2940 3 (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. Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A. (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: (a) is frivolous or vexatious; or (b) has no reasonable prospects of success. (3) The FWC may dismiss an application: (a) on its own initiative; or (b) on application.” [17] It has been held that the power to dismiss a substantive application should only be exercised cautiously, not hastily, and where there is a clear basis for doing so.3 Such a decision results in the extinguishment of a party’s application, which has been made in order to seek some form of relief from a beneficial statutory provision.4 [18] The application brought by Ms Stonhill was on the basis that believed she was being subjected to bullying behaviour within the workplace from Councillor Kingdon. However, Ms Kingdon was not re-elected to Council. As a result, she will no longer be interacting with the Applicant on a regular basis within the workplace because their former relationship of CEO and Councillor no longer exists. Therefore, the alleged incessant interaction between the Applicant and Ms Kingdon will cease. [19] The risk of Ms Kingdon bullying the Applicant in the future is highly unlikely. Ms Kingdon has given a commitment to the Commission, on the record. Ms Kingdon is aware that this commitment can be used as evidence in the future if she were to return to the alleged bullying behaviour. If Ms Kingdon does not comply with this commitment, then the Applicant can make a fresh application in the future. I accept the undertaking provided by Ms Kingdon. [20] Further, as a citizen/ratepayer of Katherine Town Council, Ms Kingdon has the right to raise any issue that she has with Council. However, it is normal practice for ratepayers to correspond with the Mayor of their Council, not the CEO. If Ms Kingdon wishes to raise any issue with Katherine Town Council in the future, I recommend that she adopt this normal process and correspond with the Mayor. [21] The bullying jurisdiction was introduced to stop bullying and harassment from occurring in the future. A stop bullying order does not proscribe any civil or financial penalty on the [2025] FWC 2940 4 perpetrator. As such, it is a preventative mechanism. In this circumstance, the democratic process has intervened before a determination was made as to whether there was any bullying occurring between Councillor Kingdon and the Applicant. [22] After considering all circumstances in this matter, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the Applicant’s application on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success. [23] Accordingly, the application is dismissed pursuant to section 587 of the FW Act. [24] I so Order. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR792315> 1 [2025] FWC 1528. 2 [2025] FWCFB 165. 3 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at [8]. 4 Nick Williams v Sydney Gay & Lesbian Business Association [2019] FWC 4399 at [12].