Ali Haider Khan Mizari v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1889

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Ali Haider Khan Mizari v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (U2026/5563) DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN CANBERRA, 26 MAY 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – Application dismissed. [1] Mr Ali Haider Khan Mizari (Applicant) was an Uber delivery driver with Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Respondent) until his account was deactivated on 1 April 2026. On the same date, the Applicant lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The Applicant sought compensation and reactivation of his Uber account. [2] The Respondent objected to the application on the basis that the Applicant was not an employee and had not been dismissed from employment for the purposes of the unfair dismissal provisions of the Act. The Respondent submitted that the application should be dismissed pursuant to s 587(1)(c) of the Act. [3] On 7 May 2026, the Commission wrote to the Applicant regarding the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection and invited him to consider whether he wished to withdraw the application and instead lodge an unfair deactivation application. The Applicant was also provided with a link to relevant information concerning unfair deactivation from a digital labour platform and was requested to respond by 13 May 2026. The Applicant did not respond to that correspondence. [4] A further email was sent to the Applicant on 15 May 2026 requesting a response by 18 May 2026. The Applicant again failed to respond. [5] On 22 May 2026, further correspondence was sent to the Applicant directing him to respond to the earlier correspondence by 25 May 2026. The Applicant was informed that if he failed to respond by the specified time, his application may be dismissed without further notice. [6] As at the date of this decision, no response has been received from the Applicant. [7] I have determined to consider whether the application should be dismissed pursuant to s 587(1) of the Act, which provides: [2026] FWC 1889 DECISION -- 1 of 2 -- [2026] FWC 1889 2 587 Dismissing applications (1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if: (a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or (b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or (c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success. [8] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if, amongst other things, the person is an employee. [9] The Applicant entered into a service agreement with the Respondent in July 2024. As correctly submitted by the Respondent, the Applicant, as an account holder performing services through a digital labour platform, was not an employee of the Respondent and could not have been dismissed from employment. [10] Despite having been afforded multiple opportunities to respond to the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection and to clarify whether he maintained that he was an employee, or alternatively wished to pursue an unfair deactivation application, the Applicant failed to provide any response. [11] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant was not an employee and was not dismissed within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, the application has no reasonable prospects of success. [12] Pursuant to s 587(1)(c) of the Act, the application is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR810329> -- 2 of 2 --