Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: Dedov v Apollo Life Sciences Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 55 APPLICANT Vadim Dedov PARTIES: RESPONDENT Apollo Life Sciences Ltd FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 6365 of 2005 CORAM: Staff J Practice and Procedure - Unfair dismissal application - Failure by applicant to comply with directions - Application for strike out - No appearance by applicant - Practice Direction 17 - Application struck out CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal - Failure by applicant to comply with directions - Application for strike out - No appearance by applicant - Practice Direction 17 - Application struck out LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Industrial Relatoins Commission Rules 1996 CASES CITED: Gu v Nature's Care Manufacture Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 39 Zammit and KTS Logistics Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 36 HEARING DATES: 21/02/2006 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 02/21/2006 APPLICANT No appearance LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Solicitor: Mr A Gray Mallesons Stephen Jaques JUDGMENT: - 1 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM: STAFF J 21 February 2006 Matter No IRC 6365 of 2005 VADIM DEDOV v APOLLO LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED Application by Vadim Dedov pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 re unfair dismissal EX TEMPORE DECISION [2006] NSWIRComm 55 1 This matter has been remitted to me in accordance with the procedure set out in Practice Direction 17 of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. This Practice Direction came into force on 9 January 2006 and has been the subject of consideration in two recent decisions: Zammit and KTS Logistics Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 36; Gu v Nature's Care Manufacture Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 39. 2 The history of this matter is that on 6 December 2005, Vadim Dedov ("the applicant") filed an application pursuant to s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, seeking relief from unfair dismissal. Apollo Life Sciences Ltd ("the respondent") filed a reply to the application on 21 December 2005. 3 On 16 January 2006, Commissioner Ritchie chaired a conciliation of the parties. The conciliation was unsuccessful and the following directions were made: 1. The applicant to file and serve any witness statements on or before 6 February 2006. 2. The respondent to file and serve any witness statements on or before 27 February 2006. 3. The applicant to file and serve any witness statements in reply on or before 6 March 2006. 4 The matter is fixed for hearing on 20 and 21 March 2006. 5 There being non-compliance with the directions by the applicant, the matter was listed for call-over before the Registrar today. 6 There was no appearance by the applicant before the Registrar or before me. 7 Mr A Gray, solicitor, who appeared for the respondent, made an application that the matter be struck out. Alternatively, a direction was sought that unless the applicant filed his evidence within a further seven days, the matter be dismissed for non-compliance and want of prosecution. Mr Gray informed me that a letter dated 8 February 2006 was forwarded to the applicant enquiring when their evidence would be filed. No response was received to this letter. 8 I have decided to proceed ex parte and deal with the application by Mr Gray. 9 Practice Direction 17 is designed to facilitate the just, quick and cost-effective disposal of unfair dismissal proceedings before the Commission. 10 In Zammit and KTS Logistics Pty Ltd, I stated at [21]: This decision will act as a clear publication of the significant terms of the case management system the Commission has introduced in respect of unfair dismissals and it will, within the limits of justice, be strictly applied. 11 If it is not already clear, whatever latitude that may have been extended in the past, has ceased. The introduction of Practice Direction 17 is intended to send a clear message to parties in unfair dismissal proceedings. It will be strictly applied. 12 The applicant is in default of directions made by the Commission and, as a result of his non-appearance, no explanation is available for the default. 13 In my view, these proceedings have not been pursued with due diligence by the applicant. 14 I therefore propose to strike the matter out. I make the following order: ORDER Pursuant to r 146(a) of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996, I order that IRC 6365 of 2005 be dismissed for want of prosecution. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.