the Applicant v Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council (SA) Aboriginal Corporation & the Respondent and Another
Citation: [2026] FWC 2254
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, claiming she was unfairly dismissed by the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council (SA) Aboriginal Corporation and two individuals. Her application was filed 11 days past the 21-day deadline. the Applicant argued the delay stemmed from mental health challenges following distressing events. She also stated she believed there was a six-month filing period, unaware of the shorter timeframe. Prior to her dismissal, she had advised the respondents that she intended to make a general protections application.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application due to the delay in filing it past the 21-day deadline. The Deputy President found there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time. While acknowledging the impact of her mental health, the court noted she had not provided medical evidence and was unaware of the actual timeframe until lodging the application. The merits of the Applicant’s underlying claim regarding unfair dismissal will be considered separately.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure employees are aware of relevant time limits for making claims to the Fair Work Commission, particularly those related to dismissals or general protections applications. Clear communication and readily available information can help prevent missed deadlines.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be mindful of strict timeframes when lodging applications with the Fair Work Commission. Seeking legal advice promptly is crucial if facing difficulties meeting these deadlines. It's important to understand the specific requirements for each type of claim.
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/2026fwc2254.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 →