Ly Tran v Millair Climate Control and Electrical Northern Territory Pty Ltd T/A Johnny Cool Darwin
Commissioner Riordan
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Ly Tran
Respondent: Millair Climate Control and Electrical Northern Territory Pty Ltd T/A Johnny Cool Darwin
Ratio
The applicant's application was dismissed pursuant to s.587(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for failure to prosecute the case, where the applicant failed to respond to telephone contact attempts from the Commissioner's Chambers, did not appear for the scheduled telephone conference, and failed to respond to a subsequent Non-Attendance Letter.
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
- Application lodged 26 September 2025 pursuant to s.739 FW Act regarding alleged dispute under Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020
- Telephone conference scheduled for 8 October 2025
- Respondent confirmed appearance in writing on 7 October 2025
- Applicant failed to confirm appearance and did not respond to requests to write to Chambers
- Associate attempted multiple times (at least 4 attempts) to contact applicant by phone on 8 October 2025 without success
- Applicant did not dial into the conference line
- Conference was vacated
- Non-Attendance Letter issued requiring explanation within 7 days
- Applicant did not respond to Non-Attendance Letter by telephone or email
- No further communication received from applicant
Factors
For
- Applicant failed to respond to multiple telephone contact attempts from Chambers
- Applicant failed to appear at scheduled telephone conference
- Applicant failed to respond to Non-Attendance Letter within 7-day timeframe
- Applicant showed no willingness to prosecute the case
- Applicant took no steps to advance the application
- Clear pattern of non-engagement and non-compliance with procedural directions
Against
Legislation referenced
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.739
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.587(1)
- Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020
Concept tags · 4
Principles · 5
articulates para 10
The power to dismiss a substantive application should only be exercised cautiously, not hastily, and where there is a clear basis for doing so, as such a decision results in the extinguishment of a party's application made to seek relief from a beneficial statutory provision.
articulates para 11
The power to dismiss an application for non-compliance is discretionary, and failure to prosecute a case is a ground for dismissal under s.587(1) without examining the merits.
Test: failure to prosecute test
cites para 10
The power to dismiss a matter should only be exercised cautiously, not hastily, and where there is a clear basis for doing so.
cites para 10
A decision to dismiss a substantive application results in the extinguishment of a party's application, which has been made in order to seek relief from a beneficial statutory provision.
Section 587(1) provides for the dismissal of a matter where the applicant has failed to prosecute their case without examining the merits.
Cases cited in this decision · 4
Cited
[1964] HCA 69
— General Steel Industries Incorporated v Commissioner for Railways (NSW),...
"…4] Accordingly, the application is dismissed pursuant to section 587 of the FW Act. [15] I so Order. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR792659> 1 General Steel Industries Inc...…"
Cited
(1964) 112 CLR 125
(not in corpus)
"…the application is dismissed pursuant to section 587 of the FW Act. [15] I so Order. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR792659> 1 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner...…"
Cited
[2019] FWC 4399
— Nick Williams v Sydney Gay & Lesbian Business Association t/a Sydney Gay &...
"…OMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR792659> 1 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at [8]. 2 Nick Williams v Sydney...…"
Cited
[2011] FWAFB 7498
— L. Sayer v Melsteel Pty Ltd
"…ority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR792659> 1 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at [8]. 2 Nick Williams v Sydney Gay & Lesbian Business...…"
Archived text (738 words)
1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute Ms Ly Tran v Millair Climate Control and Electrical Northern Territory Pty Ltd T/A Johnny Cool Darwin (C2025/9488) COMMISSIONER RIORDAN SYDNEY, 21 OCTOBER 2025 Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the modern award and the NES; [s146] [1] On 26 September 2025, Ms Ly Tran (the Applicant) lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) pursuant to s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), being an application to deal with a dispute pursuant to the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020 (the Award). The Respondent to the Application is Millair Climate Control and Electrical Northern Territory Pty Ltd T/A Johnny Cool Darwin (the Respondent). [2] The matter was listed for a Telephone Conference on 8 October 2025. The Notice of Listing asked that the parties write to my Chambers ahead of the Conference date to confirm their appearances. [3] The Respondent wrote to my Chambers on 7 October 2025 to confirm their appearances. [4] The Applicant failed to write to my Chambers to confirm her appearance. [5] Ahead of the commencement of the 8 October 2025 Conference, my Associate attempted to contact the Applicant by phone, however, the Applicant did not answer. My Associate also sent an email to the Applicant asking that she urgently make herself available to be connected to the Conference line. [6] Three further attempts were made to contact the Applicant by phone, however, the Applicant did not answer these calls and did not dial into the Conference line as required on the Notice of Listing. Accordingly, the Conference was vacated. [7] On that same date, a ‘Non-Attendance Letter’ was issued to the Applicant, requiring that she write to my Chambers within 7 days to provide an explanation for her non-attendance and reasons why her application should not be dismissed. [8] No communication, by telephone or email, has been received from the Applicant in response to the Non-Attendance Letter. [2025] FWC 3084 DECISION [2025] FWC 3084 2 Relevant Legislation [9] 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: (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.” [10] 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.1 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.2 [11] The power to dismiss an application if the non-compliance was unreasonable is discretionary. The Applicant has failed to respond to various attempts by my Chambers to contact her in relation to the Conference of 8 October 2025, and has failed to respond to the Non-Attendance Letter issued on that same date. The Applicant has shown no willingness to prosecute her case and has taken no steps to do so. [12] In L. Sayer v Melsteel Pty Ltd,3 the Full Bench held that s.587(1) provides for the dismissal of a matter where the applicant has failed to prosecute their case without examining the merits. [13] After considering all circumstances in this matter, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss Ms Tran’s application for failure to prosecute her case. [2025] FWC 3084 3 [14] Accordingly, the application is dismissed pursuant to section 587 of the FW Act. [15] I so Order. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR792659> 1 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at [8]. 2 Nick Williams v Sydney Gay & Lesbian Business Association [2019] FWC 4399 at [12]. 3 [2011] FWAFB 7498 at [19].