the Applicant v HMP Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2385
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission on February 8, 2026. He claimed to have started employment with HMP Pty Ltd on December 15, 2025, and was dismissed on January 9, 2026. This meant he had worked for approximately three weeks. The Commission noted the application was lodged outside the standard 21-day timeframe. Crucially, the Applicant did not complete the required minimum employment period of six months.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application without a hearing. This decision was made under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act because the application had no reasonable prospects of success. The Applicant failed to meet the minimum employment period requirement and did not respond to multiple communications from the Commission requesting information or submissions regarding this issue. The Commission emphasized that applicants must be given a fair opportunity, but the Applicant didn't provide any evidence to show he completed the required service time.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they have robust record-keeping practices to accurately determine employee start dates and employment periods. This is vital for assessing eligibility for unfair dismissal claims. Clear communication with employees regarding minimum employment requirements can also help prevent these situations.
What it means for employees
Employees must lodge unfair dismissal applications within the prescribed timeframe, typically 21 days. It's essential to understand and meet the minimum employment period requirement before lodging a claim. Failure to respond to communications from the Fair Work Commission regarding your application can lead to its dismissal.
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/2026fwc2385.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 →