Alexander Wilson v Precision Phone Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1766

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Alexander Wilson v Precision Phone Pty Ltd (U2024/1269) DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL MELBOURNE, 26 JUNE 2025 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy –voluntary liquidation –dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative – application has no reasonable prospects of success. [1] On 7 February 2024, Mr Alexander Wilson applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, naming Precision Phone Pty Ltd as the Respondent. [2] Ahead of a conciliation conference listed for 10 April 2024, the Commission was advised that Andrew Juzva of GS Andrews Insolvency had been appointed as liquidator of the Respondent. The ASIC notices database showed that a general meeting of creditors on 8 March 2024 resolved that the Respondent be wound up and that Andrew Juzva of GS Andrews Advisory was appointed as the liquidator. [3] On 10 May 2024, Mr Wilson was advised in correspondence from the Commission of these developments. He was referred to s.500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 which provides that “After the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up, no action or other civil proceeding is to be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court imposes.” Mr Wilson was advised that his application could not proceed unless he obtained leave of the Court and was asked to confirm by Friday, 24 May 2024, whether he intended to seek leave of the Court. [4] On 18 June 2024 Mr Wilson was again advised in correspondence that he would need to make an application to the appropriate court to seek leave, and that the matter cannot proceed except by leave of the Court. The correspondence advised him that “no action can or will be taken by the Commission in relation to your unfair dismissal application unless you obtain leave of the court.” On 18 June 2024, Deputy President Clancy stayed the matter. [5] Further correspondence to Mr Wilson sent on 13 March 2025 directed him to advise by 20 March 2025 whether he had, or will be, seeking leave of the Court. Mr Wilson was advised that if no response was received, his unfair dismissal application may be dismissed without [2025] FWC 1766 DECISION -- 1 of 2 -- [2025] FWC 1766 2 further notice. Later the same day, Mr Wilson replied to this correspondence confirming that he intended to seek leave of the Court. [6] Further correspondence to Mr Wilson on 6 June 2025 directed him to provide an update by 13 June 2025 as to whether he had, or will be, seeking leave of the Court. Mr Wilson was advised that if no response was received, his unfair dismissal application may be dismissed without further notice. No response was received from Mr Wilson. [7] It is well-established that the Commission is not a Court and is therefore unable to grant the leave required under s.500(2) of the Corporations Act.1 I am also satisfied that an application pursuant to s.394 of the Act falls within the meaning of “civil proceedings” in s.500(2) of the Corporations Act.2 I am satisfied that Mr Wilson’s application cannot proceed any further with the Commission except by leave of the Court. [8] I consider it appropriate to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. I do so on the basis that I consider the application has no reasonable prospects of success. Mr Wilson has been on notice for an extended period of a significant obstacle that prevents him from continuing his case – the need to obtain leave of a Court under s.500(2) of the Corporations Act. He has made no contact with the Commission since his email of 13 March 2025. Accordingly, I dismiss Mr Wilson’s application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. I make the following order: 1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Alexander Wilson on 7 February 2024, is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR788473> 1 Smith v Trollope Silverwood & Beck Pty Ltd (2003) 142 IR 137. 2 Silalahi v CMI Industrial (Forge) [2012] FWA 7275 at [11]-[16]. -- 2 of 2 --