the Applicant v LJ & JVA Holdings Pty Ltd Trading AS Roshni Indian Restaurant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2360
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant commenced proceedings for unfair dismissal against LJ & JVA Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as Roshni Indian Restaurant. The application initially stated he was dismissed on February 20, 2026. However, the Respondent argued there was no dismissal. Evidence presented included removal from a WhatsApp group and subsequent medical certificates and payslips showing the Applicant receiving personal/carer's leave after that date. A later email dated April 21, 2026, indicated the Applicant had abandoned his employment.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant was dismissed on April 21, 2026, not February 20, 2026. The Commissioner rejected the initial dismissal date in the application. While acknowledging a procedural irregularity due to the premature filing of the application, the Commission waived this issue following precedent set in Mihajlovic v Lifeline Macarthur [2014] FWCFB 1070. The objection was dismissed and the case will proceed to a merits hearing to determine if the April 21 dismissal was unfair.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure clear communication regarding termination of employment, including formal written notices. Reliance on informal methods like removing an employee from a group chat is insufficient proof of dismissal. Paying leave after a purported dismissal can undermine claims of termination.
What it means for employees
Employees need to accurately identify the date of their dismissal when lodging applications. Filing prematurely can create procedural issues, though waivers are possible. Employees should retain all relevant documentation like payslips and correspondence.
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/2026fwc2360.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 →