the Applicant v Marv Financial Planning Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2664
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant commenced an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging unfair dismissal by Marv Financial Planning Pty Ltd. His dismissal occurred on April 21, 2026, meaning he had 21 days to file his claim. The application was lodged one day late, on May 13, 2026, requiring an extension of time. the Applicant stated delays were due to attempts at informal resolution with legal representation from April 28, 2026.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission rejected the Applicant’s request for an extension of time to file his unfair dismissal application. The Commissioner found that the delay was not attributable to exceptional circumstances, noting the Applicant had legal representation and was aware of the deadline. While attempts at informal resolution were considered, they did not justify the delay. The application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that even with attempts at resolving disputes informally, strict time limits apply for Fair Work applications. Engaging in settlement discussions does not automatically excuse late filings. Employees can still lodge an application while negotiations are ongoing.
What it means for employees
Employees must adhere to the 21-day timeframe for lodging unfair dismissal claims. Seeking legal advice doesn't negate this requirement, and delays, even with representation, may result in applications being rejected. It is important to file promptly, even during settlement discussions.
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/2026fwc2664.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 →