When a conciliator telephoned an unfair dismissal applicant who had not appeared at a conference on 27 August 2026, the applicant’s partner answered. According to the decision, the partner said the applicant was unavailable and “must have forgotten about the Application”.
Three weeks later, Deputy President Beaumont dismissed the application on the Commission’s own initiative for want of prosecution (dismissal because the person who started the case has stopped pursuing it), using s.587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The application was lodged on 30 March 2026 under s.394 of the Act, alleging unfair dismissal by Romline Pty Ltd. A notice of listing issued on 13 April 2026 set a conciliation conference by Microsoft Teams at 9:15 AM Newcastle time on 11 May 2026. Neither the applicant nor the respondent took part. The conciliator rang each party, left voicemail messages and sent emails containing a link to join. Once the conference was abandoned, the parties were asked to confirm by 13 May 2026 whether they wanted a further conference, and neither replied.
Correspondence to the respondent repeatedly failed to arrive. The listing notice was reissued on 15 April 2026 because the applicant had given an incorrect email address for the respondent, and the Commission received delivery failure notices for the respondent on 5 May 2026, 13 May 2026 and 11 August 2026. An SMS reminder sent to the applicant on 9 May 2026 was not sent to the respondent because no telephone number had been provided for it.
On 24 June 2026, chambers directed the applicant to confirm by 1 July 2026 whether the application was to continue, warning that it would otherwise likely be dismissed under s.587. An SMS alert was sent to the applicant’s mobile on the same day. The applicant replied that day, saying they had not known about the conciliation and wanted the matter to go ahead. A second conference was listed at 9:15 AM Newcastle time on 27 August 2026, with an email reminder on 22 August 2026 and an SMS reminder on 26 August 2026.
After the second non-attendance, chambers wrote again on 7 September 2026, directing the applicant to confirm by 14 September 2026 whether they wished to proceed and warning that the application would likely be dismissed without further notice. A further SMS was sent the same day. No response was received.
- 30 Mar 2026 Unfair dismissal application lodged under s.394.
- 11 May 2026 First conciliation conference. Neither party attends.
- 24 Jun 2026 Applicant responds to a direction from chambers and asks to proceed.
- 27 Aug 2026 Second conciliation conference. Neither party attends.
- 14 Sep 2026 Deadline to confirm the application would proceed passes.
- 18 Sep 2026 Application dismissed on the Commission’s own initiative.
The Deputy President set out the applicable approach, citing the Full Bench in Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]. On that authority, where an applicant’s behaviour or failure to act indicates they will no longer take part in the case they began, the Commission need not press on with it.
The Deputy President said she was satisfied that the failure to attend the 27 August 2026 conference, to make any contact with the Commission about the non-attendance, or to respond to the 7 September 2026 email “demonstrates that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case”. The applicant had been on notice since 7 September 2026 of the likely consequences.
At a glance
- Parties: An applicant v Romline Pty Ltd
- Citation: [2026] FWC 3574, Deputy President Beaumont, Perth, 18 September 2026
- Section: Fair Work Act 2009 s.394, dismissed under s.587(3)(a)
- Outcome: Application dismissed on the Commission’s own initiative for want of prosecution
- Who it affects: Parties to unfair dismissal applications listed for conciliation
Under s.587(3)(a), the Commission may dismiss an application of its own motion, subject to the applicant being afforded procedural fairness. The decision records two written directions from chambers, two SMS alerts warning that the application was at risk of dismissal, and an express warning before the dismissal issued. The matter was determined on the papers.
Source: [2026] FWC 3574
General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.