Skip to main content
FWCFair Work Commission · 30 December 2025

the Applicant v Engage Us Pty Ltd Trading AS Engage

Citation: [2026] FWC 3110

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

the Applicant commenced an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging dismissal by Engage Us Pty Ltd (Engage). Engage asserted the Applicant was a casual employee engaged through a labour hire arrangement, and that his employment with them hadn't ended. They stated he remains in their casual employee database. the Applicant did not respond to multiple emails from the Commission requesting information to support his dismissal claim. He was notified the application may be dismissed if no response was received.

What was decided

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act. the Commissioner found the application had no reasonable prospects of success, given the Applicant’s failure to respond to multiple requests for information. the Commissioner noted it must exercise its power to dismiss judiciously, but the Applicant was given several opportunities to demonstrate he was dismissed and failed to do so. the Commissioner stated it is not required to persevere with an application where the applicant is unwilling to prosecute their matter.

What it means for employers

Employers using labour hire agencies should ensure they understand the employment status of workers and the potential for dismissal claims. Maintain clear records of employee status and communication with labour hire agencies to avoid disputes about employment termination.

What it means for employees

Employees need to actively engage with Fair Work Commission processes and respond to requests for information. Failure to do so can result in an application being dismissed.

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.

unfair-dismissalgeneral-protectionssham-contractingmodern-award-variation

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3110.pdf

Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.

FairWork Mate AI

This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.

Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.

Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.

Just need today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99

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

All cases