the Applicant v Air Liquide Healthcare Pty Ltd.
Citation: [2026] FWC 2330
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed by Air Liquide Healthcare Pty Ltd after 10 days of employment due to performance issues. He disputes these criticisms and filed an application with the Fair Work Commission on February 19, 2026, which was 34 days after his dismissal. This was outside the standard 21-day timeframe. the Applicant sought an extension of time to proceed with his claim, citing delays in receiving a termination letter, language and legal complexity, attempts at dispute resolution, financial difficulties paying the application fee, and emotional distress following the dismissal.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission refused the Applicant’s request for an extension of time and dismissed his general protections dismissal dispute application. the Commissioner found that none of the reasons provided by the Applicant constituted 'exceptional circumstances' justifying the delay. The commission noted that receiving a termination letter late, experiencing language difficulties, attempting informal resolution, financial hardship, and emotional distress are common experiences after dismissal. The Commission also considered there was no prejudice to the employer.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure timely communication of dismissal reasons in writing. While not a legal requirement to avoid delays in applications, it can strengthen their position if an extension of time is sought. Employers should be aware that simply providing written documentation does not automatically negate arguments for extensions based on other factors.
What it means for employees
Employees have a strict 21-day timeframe to file dismissal claims with the Fair Work Commission. While extensions are possible, they require demonstrating 'exceptional circumstances', which is a high bar to meet. Seeking legal advice promptly after a dismissal is crucial to understand rights and 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/2026fwc2330.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 →