The applicant was required to show cause at a hearing as to why her claim should not be dismissed under section 27(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA). This section allows the Commission to dismiss a matter if it deems it trivial, unnecessary, not in the public interest, lacking sufficient interest from the person who referred the matter, or for any other valid reason. Earlier directions listed issues, including the Commission’s jurisdiction to hear her contractual benefit claim and whether the matter should be dismissed for reasons such as estoppel or abuse of process.

The background revealed that the parties had a business relationship that ended, leading to a dispute over commissions and other amounts. Commissioner Yilmaz of the Fair Work Commission previously determined that the parties’ relationship was a business partnership, not an employment relationship. Thus, the applicant’s claim fell outside the FWC’s jurisdiction. Despite a settlement agreement reached at a conciliation conference, the applicant initiated proceedings in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

During the hearing, the applicant asserted that she understood she could sue the respondent if certain arrangements were not followed and claimed she lacked the financial means to pursue the matter in court. Commissioner Tsang found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate her employment status, which the FWC had already determined, and that her actions amounted to an abuse of process. Additionally, issue estoppel prevented her from arguing that she was an employee. Commissioner Tsang concluded that the applicant should have pursued the matter in the Magistrates Court, a more appropriate forum, and dismissed her claim under section 27(1)(a) of the Act.

The decision can be read here.