Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2868
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, an Uber Eats driver, had his digital account deactivated by Portier Pacific Pty Ltd on April 10, 2026. He filed an application for an unfair deactivation remedy on July 4, 2026, which was 64 days outside the 21-day filing deadline. the Respondent objected, citing the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code and the late filing. the Applicant sought an extension of time due to family loss, mental health issues, financial hardship, and attempts to resolve the deactivation with Uber.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission rejected the Applicant’s application for an unfair deactivation remedy because he filed it significantly outside the 21-day deadline. The Commission found that while the Applicant provided reasons for the delay including family loss and financial hardship, these did not constitute 'exceptional circumstances' warranting an extension. the Respondent argued compliance with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. The application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital platforms should ensure drivers understand deactivation processes and timelines. Compliance with relevant codes of practice is important when dealing with account deactivations. Document all communications and reasons for deactivation to mitigate potential disputes.
What it means for employees
Employees facing account deactivation must be aware of strict time limits for lodging applications. Gather medical evidence promptly if seeking an extension due to illness or personal hardship. Attempting to resolve the issue directly with the platform before filing a formal application may not automatically justify a late filing.
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/2026fwc2868.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 →