Peter Payam Far and Brian Manning Dodd & Stephen John Dodd t/as Rishworth Dodd & Co, Solicitors [2002] NSWIRComm 181

Peter Payam Far and Brian Manning Dodd & Stephen John Dodd t/as Rishworth Dodd & Co, Solicitors [2002] NSWIRComm 181

The applicant failed to attend the proceedings on two listed occasions, made no contact with the Commission or the respondent, and gave no explanation for non-attendance despite urgent correspondence sent to both known addresses warning that the application was at risk of dismissal. The applicant had not pursued the proceedings with due diligence, the respondent had suffered inconvenience and some cost, and the balance of justice favoured dismissal under rule 146 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Application by Peter Payam Far Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Directions and Conciliation; Application Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of prosecution.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'want of Prosecution' 'failure to Attend Proceedings' 'industrial Relations Commission Rules, Rule 146']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'want of Prosecution' 'failure to Attend Proceedings' 'industrial Relations Commission Rules, Rule 146']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application by Peter Payam Far Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Directions and Conciliation; Application Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had not pursued the proceedings with due diligence by failing to attend listed proceedings on 16 July 2002 and 19 July 2002.' 'Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to rule 146 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to attend the proceedings on two listed occasions, made no contact with the Commission or the respondent, and gave no explanation for non-attendance despite urgent correspondence sent to both known addresses warning that the application was at risk of dismissal. The applicant had not pursued the proceedings with due diligence, the respondent had suffered inconvenience and some cost, and the balance of justice favoured dismissal under rule 146 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to rule 146 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules, Matter 3576 of 2002 is dismissed for want of prosecution.' 'The proceedings are concluded.' 'The file will be marked accordingly and returned to the Registry.']