the Applicant v Woolworths Group
Citation: [2026] FWC 2662
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from her employment with Woolworths Group on March 16, 2026. She lodged an unfair dismissal application eleven days late, on April 17, 2026. the Applicant claimed she experienced distressing circumstances after travelling to Brisbane and being stranded, preventing timely lodgement. The Fair Work Commission was asked to grant an extension of time for her application.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application because it found there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the 21-day timeframe for lodging the claim. While acknowledging the Applicant faced challenges, the Commission noted she provided insufficient evidence to explain the delay and did not attempt to dispute her dismissal earlier. The substantive merits of the case were not considered due to the time limit issue.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure employees are aware of the 21-day timeframe for lodging unfair dismissal applications. It is important to document investigation processes, including opportunities for employees to respond and participate. A failure to do so may be viewed negatively by the Fair Work Commission.
What it means for employees
Employees have a strict 21-day deadline to lodge an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission. If facing difficulties that might delay this process, it's crucial to seek legal advice and provide evidence supporting any request for an extension of time as soon as possible.
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/2026fwc2662.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