the Applicant v McMillan Shakespeare Limited & the Respondent and Another
Citation: [2026] FWC 2517
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant filed an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging unfair dismissal by McMillan Shakespeare Limited. Her employment ended on May 27, 2026, meaning her application was one day late, lodged on June 18, 2026. She attributed the delay to a miscalculation of the deadline and technical difficulties when completing the online form. She also cited stress related to managing an internal appeal and drafting correspondence to her employer, alongside a pre-existing medical condition.
What was decided
the Fair Work Commission Deputy President dismissed the Applicant’s application for an extension of time. While acknowledging she took steps to dispute the dismissal, the Commission found no exceptional circumstances justifying the delay. The Commission noted that miscalculations and technical difficulties alone do not constitute exceptional circumstances. The application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure employees understand relevant deadlines, particularly those related to Fair Work claims. Providing clear communication and support can help prevent late applications. While technical issues are common, employers shouldn't assume they automatically excuse missed deadlines.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be aware of strict time limits for lodging Fair Work claims. Seeking assistance promptly if facing difficulties is crucial. Relying solely on stress or technical problems as justification for lateness may not be sufficient; supporting documentation, such as medical reports, can strengthen a case 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/2026fwc2517.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. 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 today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
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