Adrian Chapman v National Masonry Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2334

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.365—General protections Adrian Chapman v National Masonry Pty Ltd (C2026/2356) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 29 JUNE 2026 Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – dismissal under s 587(3)(a) for want of prosecution [1] On 7 April 2026, Adrian Chapman (the Applicant) lodged a general protections involving dismissal application (the Application) under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). [2] The Application is incomplete because the Applicant did not provide the contact details for the Respondent. [3] On 20 April 2026, Commission staff contacted the Applicant and informed the Applicant that the Application was incomplete. The Applicant was instructed to provide a response by 4 May 2026, and informed that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if the Commission did not receive a response in that timeframe. An SMS was sent to the Applicant’s nominated telephone on 20 April 2026, regarding the incomplete Application. The Applicant did not provide the contact details for the Respondent within the set period. [4] On 8 May 2026, Commission staff telephoned the Applicant’s nominated telephone number regarding the incomplete Application. The Applicant did not answer the call and a voice message was left requesting that they call the Commission’s helpline. [5] My Chambers emailed the Applicant on 9 June 2026. The Applicant was informed that their Application remained incomplete as their Application did not disclose the contact name, email address and telephone number for the Respondent. The Applicant was directed to provide the contact name, email address and telephone number for the Respondent within a set period. The Applicant was again placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if they did not comply with the directions. An SMS was sent to the Applicant’s nominated telephone on 9 June 2026. The Applicant did not respond to the correspondence or comply with the directions. [6] 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. [2026] FWC 2334 DECISION AND ORDER -- 1 of 2 -- [2026] FWC 2334 2 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. In relation to this Application, the Applicant was afforded the opportunity to advise the Commission that they considered their circumstances warranted an extension of time for filing the Application. Additionally, the Applicant was placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if they did not provide a response to my Chambers. [7] 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]). [8] I am satisfied that the Applicant’s conduct in failing to respond to the Commission’s correspondence dated 20 April 2026 and 9 June 2026 in respect of the incomplete Application demonstrates that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case. [9] 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. [10] 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 Adrian Chapman on 7 April 2026 under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Matter determined on the papers Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811328> -- 2 of 2 --