Relevant principles for considering harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal under s.387 of the Fair Work Act.

The Commission must consider each matter specified in s.387 of the Fair Work Act against the evidence before it.

An applicant's failure to prosecute their application can be grounds for dismissal.

The Commission is obliged to give reasons for its decisions which deal with material legal and factual issues presented for determination, particularly when a statutory right of appeal exists and the Commission is exercising quasi-judicial powers in proceedings between parties.

Where an appeal lies from an administrative decision and the proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature involving inter partes orders, the decision-maker is obliged to give reasons addressing material issues because a right of appeal without adequate reasons would be prejudiced.

A quasi-judicial tribunal with appeal rights is obliged to give reasons for its decision which deal with the material legal and factual issues presented for determination.

Standard of proof in civil matters, applied to evaluation of whether Mr Fuller knowingly made false statutory declaration.

In a situation where an employee is informed by email of dismissal, the employee can usually be regarded as knowing or having a reasonable opportunity to know of dismissal when the email is received in the inbox of the employee's usual email address, unless there are circumstances such as incapacitating illness or legitimate inability to access email. A simple refusal to read an email does not delay the effective date.

A failure to monitor compliance or enforce a policy can be a relevant factor that weighs against a finding that dismissal for breach of the policy was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

An applicant should have their 'day in court' before a substantive application is dismissed.

Normally in order to hold a belief on reasonable grounds it will be necessary to have a discussion with the employee about the perceived serious misconduct and pay regard to the explanations and views given by the employee, but this is not an absolute requirement in all cases.

Normally in order to hold a belief on reasonable grounds it will be necessary to have a discussion with the employee about the perceived serious misconduct and pay regard to the explanations and views given by the employee.