In the original application, the appellant commenced a claim for an equal remuneration order. The substance of the application however, suggested the appellant was seeking the recovery of unpaid wages from the respondent. The Commissioner listed the appellant’s application for a hearing to show cause why it should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The hearing was listed for a variety of reasons, including the appellant’s inaction on progressing the application and complying with directions or communication with the Commission. After failing to appear for the show cause hearing, the Commissioner dismissed the appellant’s application.

The appellant appealed against the order of the Commissioner, citing the primary basis for the challenge was that the appellant was unable to attend the show cause hearing due to a personal matter. No challenge was made by the appellant to the Commissioner’s findings, nor was there any challenge against the claims of failing to communicate with the Commission.

The Full Bench considered appellant’s argument; however, the Full Bench was not persuaded there was any error made by the Commissioner in dismissing the original claim, nor had any appealable error been demonstrated by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 

In handing down its reasons for decision, the Full Bench highlighted the importance of parties to proceedings before the Commission to exercise prompt and clear communication with the Commission and Registry, in order for matters to be dealt with expeditiously. 

The decision can be read here.