the Applicant v H&M Hennes & Mauritz Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FCA 834
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant commenced proceedings against H&M Hennes & Mauritz Pty Ltd (H&M) in February 2026, alleging general protections under the Fair Work Act. Shortly after, H&M filed an interlocutory application seeking suppression and non-publication orders to prevent media reporting of the case documents. This application was made without argument before a Registrar who made interim orders including a suppression order. the Applicant’s solicitor had previously received communications from H&M indicating they would defend the case fully and were unconcerned about media reporting.
What was decided
The Federal Court dismissed H&M's interlocutory application for suppression and non-publication orders, which was no longer being pursued. Justice Lee found that filing and maintaining this application was an unreasonable act under section 570 of the Fair Work Act. As a result, H&M was ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs associated with dealing with H&M's interlocutory application.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully consider the basis for seeking suppression orders and ensure they are genuinely necessary to protect the administration of justice. Making unfounded applications can lead to cost orders against the employer, as seen in this case. Communications with opposing counsel should align with actions taken in proceedings.
What it means for employees
Employees who face adverse action claims may be entitled to recover costs from their former employer if the employer pursues unreasonable legal tactics, such as filing frivolous suppression applications.
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.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0834Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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