the Applicant v Woolworths (W.A.) Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2280
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission on May 22, 2026, alleging she was unfairly dismissed by Woolworths (W.A.) Pty Limited on April 23, 2026. The application was filed outside the statutory 21-day timeframe. The Commission notified the Applicant that an extension of time would only be granted if exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and requested a response. the Applicant did not respond to multiple notifications via email and SMS, despite being warned about potential dismissal.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application for want of prosecution. Deputy President Beaumont found that the Applicant failed to engage with the process by not responding to requests for information regarding an extension of time. The Commission can dismiss applications if it appears the applicant has stopped pursuing their case, and the Applicant's lack of response demonstrated a unwillingness to participate. The application was dismissed under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure employees are aware of strict time limits for lodging unfair dismissal applications. Consistent communication and clear warnings about potential consequences for non-engagement can support a decision to dismiss an application for want of prosecution, provided procedural fairness is followed.
What it means for employees
Employees must be mindful of the 21-day timeframe for lodging unfair dismissal claims. If an extension of time is needed, it's crucial to respond promptly and provide justification for exceptional circumstances. Failure to do so can result in the application being dismissed.
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/2026fwc2280.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 →