Skip to main content
FairWorkMate
FWCFair Work Commission · 31 December 2024

the Applicant v Elite1 Group Pty Ltd

Citation: [2025] FWC 1830

What happened

the Applicant commenced work with Elite1 Group Pty Ltd. He subsequently filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The application was lodged out of time, requiring him to seek relief under section 394(3) of the Fair Work Act. The Commission needed to consider whether there were sufficient grounds to grant relief from the time limit.

What was decided

The Fair Work Commission considered the Applicant’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy, which was lodged outside the standard time limit. The Commission found that there were sufficient reasons to grant relief from the time limit under section 394(3). the Commissioner stated, 'I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to grant relief from the strict time limit'. The decision does not detail the substantive unfair dismissal claim itself.

What it means for employers

Employers should be aware of the possibility of applications being lodged outside of standard time limits. They should be prepared to address applications seeking relief from time limits under section 394(3) of the Fair Work Act. This requires careful consideration of the reasons for the delay and whether there are sufficient grounds to grant relief.

What it means for employees

Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed but missed the standard time limit for lodging a claim should seek legal advice promptly. It may be possible to apply for relief from the time limit under section 394(3) of the Fair Work Act, but this requires demonstrating sufficient grounds for the delay.

Want this applied to your situation?

Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.

unfair-dismissalgeneral-protectionsredress

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc1830.pdf

Want more cases like this?

FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.

Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + advisor access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.

Get notified on new Fair Work cases

Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.

Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →

← All cases