Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2326
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Applicant sought an extension of time to file her unfair deactivation application against Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Respondent). She was deactivated on February 20, 2026, and filed the application on April 4, 2026, 22 days beyond the 21-day limit. The Applicant cited depression, a belief she needed to exhaust internal review processes, lack of notification about filing deadlines, and immediate action upon becoming aware of her rights as reasons for the delay.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) dismissed the Applicant’s request for an extension of time. Deputy President Saunders found that the Applicant did not provide a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay, citing ignorance of legal processes and lack of medical evidence during the relevant period. While acknowledging some action taken to dispute deactivation and potential merits in her case, the FWC determined there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an extension under s 536LU(4) of the Fair Work Act.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure workers understand their rights and deadlines for lodging claims. While not obligated to proactively inform employees about time limits, clear communication regarding internal review processes can help avoid misunderstandings. This case highlights that ignorance of legal requirements is generally not a valid excuse for missing deadlines.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be aware of strict time limits when pursuing workplace claims, even if they are experiencing personal difficulties. Seeking advice promptly and understanding the process is crucial. Relying on assumptions about internal review processes before seeking external assistance can lead to missed deadlines.
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/2026fwc2326.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 →