the Applicant v Bresic Whitney Estate Agents Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2393
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant commenced employment with Bresic Whitney Estate Agents Pty Limited on July 1, 2025, and was dismissed on November 18, 2025. He lodged an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission on December 23, 2025. The Commission determined he had not completed the required six-month minimum employment period for an unfair dismissal claim. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact him and request information regarding his employment period, the Applicant did not respond.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application without a hearing. The Deputy President found the application had no reasonable prospects of success because the Applicant hadn't served the minimum six-month employment period. Section 587 of the Fair Work Act allows the Commission to dismiss applications if they have no reasonable prospect of success, avoiding prolonged proceedings. the Applicant was given opportunities to respond but failed to do so.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that employees must meet minimum employment periods before lodging an unfair dismissal claim. Communication from the Fair Work Commission regarding eligibility is important and a lack of response from an applicant can lead to dismissal of their application.
What it means for employees
Employees need to ensure they meet the minimum employment period requirements (usually six months for small businesses) before filing an unfair dismissal claim. Respond promptly to communications from the Fair Work Commission, or your application may be 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/2026fwc2393.pdfSend your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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