the Applicant v Marathon Food Industries Proprietary Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2691
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant filed an unfair dismissal claim against Marathon Food Industries Proprietary Limited (the Respondent). The Fair Work Commission issued directions for filing documents, which the Applicant repeatedly missed. Despite receiving warnings and a one-week extension, he failed to meet the final deadline of 25 June 2026. He cited financial hardship, lack of legal support, computer illiteracy, a motorbike accident, and phone damage as reasons for his non-compliance. The Respondent applied under s 399A of the Fair Work Act to have the application dismissed due to the Applicant’s failure to follow directions.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President Masson dismissed the Applicant's unfair dismissal application pursuant to s 399A of the Fair Work Act. The Deputy President found that his repeated failures to comply with filing deadlines were unreasonable, despite explanations offered. He noted the Applicant did not seek extensions and had ample time to prepare his case. The Deputy President rejected many of the reasons given for non-compliance due to lack of evidence or relevance.
What it means for employers
Employers can enforce Fair Work Commission directions by seeking dismissal under s 399A if an applicant fails to comply with filing deadlines and other procedural requirements. This demonstrates the importance of adhering to timelines set by the FWC, even for self-represented parties. Clear communication regarding compliance expectations is crucial.
What it means for employees
Employees must adhere to directions from the Fair Work Commission when pursuing claims. Failure to do so can result in dismissal of the application, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. Seeking extensions proactively and communicating any difficulties promptly is essential.
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/2026fwc2691.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 →