Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2516
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as a delivery driver for Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber) from January 9, 2026, and her account was deactivated on February 24, 2026. She filed an application for an unfair deactivation remedy with the Fair Work Commission on April 30, 2026, which was more than the allowed 21-day period. the Applicant sought an extension of time to file her application, citing lack of awareness of the deadline and communication with Uber regarding the deactivation.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission refused the Applicant’s request for an extension of time to file her unfair deactivation application. the Commissioner found she did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the delay. The commission considered factors like the reason for the delay, communication with Uber, potential prejudice to Uber, and the merits of the Applicant's claim. the Respondent argued that granting the extension would cause them prejudice and raised a jurisdictional objection regarding the Applicant’s status as a protected employee.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure workers are clearly informed about relevant time limits for lodging applications with the Fair Work Commission, particularly in relation to deactivation remedies. Maintaining clear communication records related to termination or deactivation processes is also important.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be aware of strict timeframes for filing applications with the Fair Work Commission. Seeking legal advice promptly after a workplace event can help ensure compliance with these deadlines. Ignorance of the timeframe isn't usually sufficient reason for an extension.
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/2026fwc2516.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 →