the Applicant v The Trustee for BODA Malvern Unit Trust
Citation: [2026] FWC 1598
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 12
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from her role as Salon Manager at Hair Boutique Richmond on February 5, 2026, due to performance concerns. She initiated an unfair dismissal claim seeking compensation. the Trustee for BODA Malvern Unit Trust raised jurisdictional objections regarding the minimum employment period and compliance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. the Applicant started her full-time position on July 8, 2025. The respondent operates two salons: Hair Boutique Richmond and Hair Boutique Moonee Ponds.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission has dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application due to a jurisdictional objection. The Commission found that the Trustee for BODA Malvern Unit Trust was a small business employer, meaning the Applicant had not met the required minimum employment period of twelve months at the time of her dismissal. The claim was rejected without considering the merits of the unfair dismissal.
What it means for employers
Employers should accurately calculate their employee numbers when determining if they qualify as a 'small business' for Fair Work purposes. Failing to do so can impact jurisdictional objections in unfair dismissal claims. Associated entities must be considered when calculating employee numbers.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be aware of the minimum employment period requirements before lodging an unfair dismissal claim, which is longer for small businesses than other employers. The length of service impacts whether a case will even be heard by the Fair Work Commission.
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/2026fwc1598.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 →