the Applicant v the Respondent/Adelaide Magistrates Court
Citation: [2026] FWC 2609
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant filed an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging her employment termination contravened the Act due to severe racism, discrimination and bullying. She named the Adelaide Magistrates Court and three individuals as respondents. The respondents raised jurisdictional objections arguing that the court was not a constitutionally-covered entity or national system employer, the Applicant wasn't an employee, and even if she were, public sector employment exclusion would apply. the Applicant stated she worked as a paid contractor for Mediation at the Magistrates Court but later acknowledged being part of a Pro Bono panel.
What was decided
the Deputy President upheld the respondents’ jurisdictional objections and dismissed the Applicant's application. The Commission found that the Applicant was not an employee, but rather engaged as a pro bono mediator, and therefore could not have been unfairly dismissed. The Court also lacked jurisdiction because it wasn't a national system employer or constitutionally-covered entity. The decision was issued against 'The State Courts Administrator as employing authority in Courts Administration Authority for and on behalf of the Crown in right of the State of South Australia'.
What it means for employers
Employers, particularly those utilising volunteer or pro bono services, should clearly define engagement terms to avoid misclassification issues. Ensure contracts accurately reflect the nature of the arrangement to prevent claims based on employment status.
What it means for employees
Individuals providing services need to understand their classification as employees versus contractors. Misunderstandings about employment status can impact access to workplace protections under the Fair Work Act.
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/2026fwc2609.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 →