Parties to matters before the Fair Work Commission may apply to have the matter adjourned.
There should be no presumption that an adjournment will be granted. The principles in relation to adjourning (or staying) proceedings are as follows:
The Commission's task is a 'balancing of justice between the parties' taking all relevant factors into account.
An adjournment of an unfair dismissal application will only occur if there are substantial grounds for the adjournment application.
Examples where a request for an adjournment may be granted include:
The other party will be asked to comment on the adjournment request prior to a decision being made by the Commission.
The Commission attempts to contact the parties to an unfair dismissal application as the matter progresses.
If a party does not respond to the Commission’s notices or directions the application may still be dealt with as an uncontested application.
Any orders made by the Commission in an uncontested application are legally binding and enforceable, subject to any contrary outcome on appeal.
In determining whether a civil matter interferes with a defendant in a criminal matter's right to silence the following relevant factors may be considered:
The principles within McMahon v Gould have been questioned in subsequent judgments but the decision has not been overturned.
The right under the Fair Work Act 2009 to make an unfair dismissal remedy application is personal to the dismissed employee. The Fair Work Act does not confer a right to a remedy, but only a right to make an application and having it heard according to law. It is a right that is a bare and non-assignable right and generally is not one that is to be regarded as a proprietary right.
This situation also leads to a number of considerations with respect to procedural fairness, particularly with regard to the capacity to give and test evidence and to the right of reply, which prevent the proceedings from continuing following the passing of an applicant.
If the applicant in an unfair dismissal matter has passed away, the estate of the applicant cannot continue with the application.
The Commission will find that the application has no reasonable prospects of success and dismiss it.
 Sanford v Austin Clothing Company Pty Ltd trading as Gaz Man, Print S8287 (AIRC, Watson SDP, 19 July 2000) at para. 26.
 Sanford v Austin Clothing Company Pty Ltd trading as Gaz Man, Print S8287 (AIRC, Watson SDP, 19 July 2000) at para. 31; summarising the relevant principles from McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202.
 Sanford v Austin Clothing Company Pty Ltd trading as Gaz Man, Print S8287 (AIRC, Watson SDP, 19 July 2000) at para. 28; citing McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202.
 See for eg Antonarakis v Logan City Electrical Service Division Pty Ltd  FWC 3801 (Simpson C, 21 July 2017).
 See for example Baker v CMR of Federal Police (2000) 104 FCR 359 ‒; Yuill v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 8 ACSR 272 (Kirby P).
 Stan v Frontline Australasia  FWC 5457 (Gostencnik DP, 12 August 2014) at para. 7; see also Millington v Traders International Pty Ltd  FWCFB 888 (Hatcher VP, Asbury DP, Simpson C, 23 April 2014) at para. 71.
 Rohrlach v L.M Robertson & P.F. Robertson T/A PF & LM Robertson  FWC 2798 (Simpson C, 21 May 2018) at para. 12.