the Applicant v The Trustee For Clarendon Unit Trust
Citation: [2026] FWC 2851
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant initiated an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging unfair dismissal by The Trustee for Clarendon Unit Trust. Her dismissal took effect on March 31, 2026, and the standard 21-day filing period ended April 21, 2026. She filed her application on April 22, 2026, requiring an extension of time. the Applicant cited shock from the dismissal, a family pet's illness, and medication side effects related to ADHD as reasons for the delay. She also acknowledged miscalculating the deadline.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to file her unfair dismissal claim. The Deputy President found that while the Applicant experienced distress following her dismissal, this was not exceptional enough to warrant an extension. While she took some action by emailing the Respondent about the termination, the delay was due to miscalculation and a lack of prioritization. The Commission noted a 'very high bar' for extensions under s.366(2).
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that simply asserting performance issues may not be sufficient to justify a dismissal if an employee seeks an extension of time to lodge a claim. It is important to maintain accurate records and provide clear communication regarding termination reasons.
What it means for employees
Employees seeking to file a claim after the 21-day deadline must demonstrate truly exceptional circumstances for an extension to be granted. Seeking advice promptly, even if feeling overwhelmed, can assist in meeting deadlines or understanding options.
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/2026fwc2851.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 →