the Applicant v Paspaley Pearling Company Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2907
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy against Paspaley Pearling Company Pty Limited. The parties initially proceeded towards a hearing but then entered into a settlement agreement on April 23, 2026, which included a requirement for the Applicant to file a Notice of Discontinuance. She failed to do so within the stipulated timeframe. Despite reminders from Paspaley Pearling and the Commission, the Applicant did not file the notice or respond to communications. Her email address subsequently began auto-replying indicating she was no longer accepting emails.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application. The Commission found that the Applicant unreasonably failed to discontinue her application after a settlement agreement had been concluded, referencing section 399A of the Fair Work Act. The decision was made based on uncontested material as the Applicant did not file submissions in response to the s.399A application. An order for dismissal will be issued.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure settlement agreements clearly outline obligations for both parties, including timelines and specific actions like filing Notices of Discontinuance. Consistent follow-up regarding compliance with these obligations is important. Failure to comply can lead to a case being dismissed.
What it means for employees
Employees entering into settlement agreements must understand their obligations and adhere to the agreed terms, particularly deadlines for actions like filing notices. Failing to do so may result in your claim being dismissed even if a resolution was initially reached.
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/2026fwc2907.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 →