the Applicant v The Trustee For Running Double Trust
Citation: [2026] FWC 2264
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from her role at Annie’s Old Fashioned Ice Cream Parlour, owned by The Trustee For Running Double Trust, on March 9, 2026. She alleges misconduct allegations led to her dismissal and denies these claims. the Applicant filed an unfair dismissal application 37 days after her dismissal. She sought an extension of time to file the application due to hospitalization and mental health challenges following her dismissal, claiming she was awaiting a medical report and recovery. The company was represented by director Lisa Pitts.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission refused the Applicant’s request for an extension of time to lodge her unfair dismissal claim. the Commissioner found that while the Applicant experienced mental health challenges after the dismissal, these were not exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. The Commission considered factors like the reason for the delay, awareness of the dismissal, actions taken to dispute it, prejudice to the employer, merits of the application and fairness between parties. Her unfair dismissal application was subsequently dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that simply denying allegations or demonstrating a lack of prejudice isn't enough to automatically prevent an extension of time request. While this case didn’t find exceptional circumstances, employers need to carefully consider the reasons for any delay in filing and potential impacts on employees’ mental health.
What it means for employees
Employees have a strict 21-day timeframe to lodge unfair dismissal applications. If unable to meet this deadline, seeking an extension requires demonstrating 'exceptional circumstances'. Simply experiencing distress after dismissal isn't enough; there needs to be a compelling reason and documented support 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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2264.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 →