It is not necessary to find an application is frivolous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospects of success; section 587 provides Fair Work Australia with a broad discretion to dismiss an application.

An application pursuant to s.365 of the Fair Work Act falls within the meaning of 'civil proceedings' in s.500(2) of the Corporations Act.

An applicant who files in the incorrect jurisdiction but within the statutory timeframe may take immediate corrective action to file in the correct jurisdiction, which may be relevant to an extension of time application.

An appeal under s90 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) is restricted to three permitted grounds: (a) the decision is in excess of jurisdiction in that the matter is not an industrial matter; (b) the decision is erroneous in law in that there has been an error in the construction or interpretation of any Act, regulation, award, industrial agreement or order in the course of making the decision appealed against; or (c) the appellant has been denied the right to be heard.

Where a tribunal has failed to discharge its statutory function due to denial of procedural fairness constituting jurisdictional error, the tribunal may lawfully proceed to perform that function by reconsidering the matter afresh and making a valid decision, provided the statutory scheme does not preclude this.

On proper construction of s90(1) as modified by s33S of the Police Act 1892 (WA), a police officer has no right of appeal to the Industrial Appeal Court from a Commission decision dismissing an appeal on the ground that removal was not harsh, oppressive or unfair.

The phrase 'any necessary modifications' in s33S of the Police Act does not permit modification of s90 of the Industrial Relations Act to create a right of appeal from a decision of the Commission dismissing an appeal, as this would contradict the specific provision limiting appeal rights to s33U decisions.

Upon proper construction of s90(1) IR Act as modified by s33S of the Police Act, a police officer has no right of appeal to the Industrial Appeal Court where the WAIRC has dismissed the removal appeal on the merits (finding removal was not harsh, oppressive or unfair).

In considering applications to intervene under s27(1)(k) IR Act, a person whose rights will be directly affected by an order must be given a full and fair opportunity to be heard. However, natural justice does not require that everyone who may suffer some detriment as an indirect result of an order is entitled to be heard. A person affected indirectly and consequentially is not entitled to be heard before the matter is determined.

It is not unusual for employees in Western Australia to confuse the WAIRC and Fair Work Commission, but this principle should not be read as a carte blanche that all applications mistakenly lodged in WAIRC are by their nature unexceptional.

The Chief Commissioner cannot order restoration of a person to a union office where the person is no longer eligible under the union's rules and those of its counterpart federal body to occupy such a position, as such an order would constitute a flagrant contravention of the union's rules and be beyond the power of s66.

The test under s739 of the FW Act is whether the dispute settlement procedure in the enterprise agreement requires or allows the Commission to deal with the dispute; it is necessary to look at the text of the dispute settlement procedure, understood in light of its industrial context and purpose, to determine whether the dispute, properly characterised, falls within it.