[2025] FWC 3405
Citation: [2025] FWC 3405
What happened
the Applicant sought permission to be represented by a paid agent in his unfair dismissal claim against Thunder Tax Pty Ltd, the Respondent. the Applicant argued representation would improve efficiency, as the case involves complex legal issues and remote working context, and that he was unable to effectively represent himself due to the breakdown in the relationship with the Respondent. The Respondent opposed the application, arguing it wasn't sufficiently complex to warrant representation, and that allowing it would create an imbalance given their status as a small business and undermine the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President Butler dismissed the Applicant’s application for permission to be represented by a paid agent. The Commission found that allowing representation would not necessarily improve efficiency, given issues with the agent's preparedness. It also concluded the Applicant was capable of representing himself and that the breakdown in the relationship didn’t warrant professional representation. The Commission emphasized the importance of maintaining accessible and cost-effective processes for small business employers.
What it means for employers
Small businesses should be aware that the Fair Work Commission carefully considers requests for paid representation, particularly in unfair dismissal cases. The Commission prioritizes accessible and informal processes for small employers and is unlikely to grant representation unless there's a clear need.
What it means for employees
Employees seeking representation in Fair Work matters generally need permission from the Commission. They must demonstrate a compelling reason, such as complexity or inability to represent themselves effectively. A strained relationship with the employer alone is not sufficient justification.
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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc3405.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
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 →