the Applicant v Kundalini Pty Limited Trading AS Kundalini Hair
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 170
What happened
the Applicant appealed a decision by Deputy President regarding an application for unfair dismissal against Kundalini Pty Limited trading as Kundalini Hair. The Commission had dismissed the Applicant’s application, finding she hadn't provided an acceptable reason for the delay in lodging her claim and that there were no exceptional circumstances to extend the time limit. The Deputy President determined the employment ended on February 3, 2026, and considered conflicting accounts regarding a potential agreement extending employment until March 21, 2026. the Applicant sought permission to appeal this decision.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Full Bench refused the Applicant’s application for permission to appeal the Deputy President’s decision. The bench found that the Applicant did not present an arguable case of appealable error in the original decision. They noted the Deputy President had considered and weighed relevant evidence, including medical information related to the Applicant’s capacity. The Full Bench also highlighted the Commission’s obligation to conduct hearings when facts are disputed and found no procedural unfairness.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they clearly communicate termination dates to employees in writing. They need to be prepared for potential delays in receiving unfair dismissal applications and understand the criteria for exceptional circumstances that might warrant an extension of time. Maintaining accurate records of communication regarding employment terms is crucial.
What it means for employees
Employees seeking to make an unfair dismissal claim should adhere to strict time limits. If there are reasons for a delay, it's important to provide clear and acceptable explanations. Employees with disabilities or capacity concerns should proactively communicate their needs to the Commission to ensure fair consideration of their application.
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/2026fwcfb170.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 →