UNFAIR DISMISSAL APPLICATION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION : 2025 WAIRC 00903

DELIVERED : Wednesday, 5 November 2025

FILE NO. : U 28 OF 2022

Applicant

AND

Curlys For Hair

Respondent

CatchWords : Industrial Law (WA) – Unfair dismissal application – Failure to prosecute application – s 27(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) – Application dismissed for want of prosecution

Legislation : Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA)

  Industrial Relations Commission Regulations 2005 (WA)  

Result : Application dismissed for want of prosecution

Representation:

Applicant : No Appearance

Respondent : No Appearance

Reasons for Decision (Given Ex Tempore)

1         Ms Amy-Louise Jade Bainbridge (applicant) filed an application to the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) on 18 February 2022, alleging her dismissal from Curlys For Hair (respondent), was unfair.

2         On 14 March 2022, the respondent filed a response and contended the dismissal was fair in the circumstances.

3         On 15 March 2022, my associate contacted the respondent by way of telephone call, to indicate the matter would be listed for a Conciliation Conference and to seek available dates. In this telephone call, the respondent indicated concerns with appearing and facing the applicant in person. Information was provided to the respondent about remote attendance to accommodate their concerns.

4         On 22 March 2022, a Conciliation Conference was listed for 29 April 2022, in line with the parties supplied available dates. Formal letters confirming the listing date were sent to the applicant by email on 22 March 2022 and were posted to the respondent on 23 March 2022.

5         On 4 April 2022, the respondent emailed the Commission, expressing further concerns about attending the Conciliation Conference and enquired as to whether it would be possible to appear remotely.

6         On 7 April 2022, the Commission sent an email to the parties, acknowledging the respondent’s concerns and sought to clarify whether the respondent was wishing to appear remotely.

7         On 13 April 2022, the respondent submitted a remote attendance request via email and advised that ‘I (respondent) would like to be involved but with no contact’.

8         Following from this communication, on 19 April 2022, the Commission sent an email to the parties advising the respondent’s remote attendance request was granted. The Commission advised that if the respondent had concerns about appearing herself, then she could nominate a representative to appear on her behalf.

9         On 28 April 2022, the respondent advised the Commission they would no longer be attending the Conciliation Conference listed the following day.

10      Furthermore, on 29 April 2022, the applicant did not appear at the scheduled Conciliation Conference.

11      On 9 May 2022, the Commission emailed the parties, seeking an explanation for the lack of appearance on behalf of the applicant at the Conciliation Conference. The Commission requested the applicant provide an indication of how they wished to proceed by no later than 4.00 pm on 16 May 2022.

12      The applicant at first instance, did not respond to this email.

13      On 18 May 2022, the Commission requested a further update, noting there was no response to the Commission’s email dated 9 May 2022.

14      On the same day, the applicant responded saying:

‘I think you may have sent an email this morning and I cant find it in my inbox. In regards to the Amy Bainbridge v Curlys. I did not attend the scheduled zoom meeting. Can you please advise the outcome. Thank you, Amy.’

15      The Commission responded on 19 May 2022, informing that the Conciliation Conference on 29 April 2022 could not proceed as the applicant did not appear, and hence, there was no outcome. Further, the Commission sought the applicant’s views as to progressing the matter. Several procedural options were provided in the 19 May 2022 correspondence.

16      Noting there was no response, my associate at the time attempted to contact the applicant by way of telephone call, to ascertain their intentions. My associate telephoned the applicant on 23 May 2022, 27 May 2022, 1 July 2022 and 6 July 2022. Within this attempted communication, voicemails were left for the applicant to return the Commission’s calls. No return call was received.

17      Further correspondence was sent by email on 6 July 2022, attempting to establish the applicant’s intentions. Furthermore, along with the email, a letter was posted to the applicant on the same day. No response was received.

18      On 15 August 2022, the Commission sent a further email and posted letter to the applicant. In this correspondence, the applicant was warned that if they did not respond to the matters raised, the Commission may list the matter for a Show Cause Hearing. The Commission explained that the purpose of the Hearing would be for the applicant to show cause why this matter ought not be dismissed pursuant to s 27(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (IR Act).

19      No further communication was received from either party.

20      On 6 February 2025, the Commission sent a further email, noting no communication had been received since May 2022. In this email, the Commission informed that if the applicant did not respond, the matter would be listed for a Show Cause Hearing.

21      Subsequently, on 7 April 2025, a Show Cause Hearing was listed for 8 September 2025. Both parties were issued with a Notice of Hearing by email and registered post.

22      The applicant did not attend the Hearing. I am satisfied the Applicant was properly notified of the Hearing in accordance with the IR Act and the Industrial Relations Commission Regulations 2005 (WA) and the Hearing could proceed in her absence.

23      I note also that the respondent did not attend the Hearing. However, I note the respondent was advised there was no requirement for them to attend.

24      I am satisfied the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on why the application ought not be dismissed for want of prosecution. There is an onus on the applicant to progress her matter, and she has not done so.

25      Given the lack of any communication from the applicant since May 2022, I consider the applicant has failed to progress her application and does not have sufficient interest in the matter. As such, I will dismiss the application for want of prosecution.