Amaranna Collins Gerald Odika v Life Without Barriers [2026] FWC 2201

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Amaranna Collins Gerald Odika v Life Without Barriers (U2025/20451) COMMISSIONER SLOAN SYDNEY, 15 JUNE 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy [1] This is an edited version of my decision given on transcript on 5 June 2026. [2] On 24 December 2025, Amaranna Collins Gerald Odika commenced unfair dismissal proceedings under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 against his former employer, Life Without Barriers. A conciliation was conducted on 12 February 2026. At that conciliation the parties agreed on terms to resolve the matter, which were to be set out in the Commission's standard terms of settlement to be prepared by the conciliator. The agreement was expressly subject to a three business day cooling-off period. [3] Later on 12 February 2026, the conciliator sent an email to the parties. It opened with the words, “I confirm that the case has settled”, and provided a link at which the “agreed terms of settlement” could be found. The email went on to inform the parties that a three-day cooling-off period then applied. The conciliator said that she would hold the file for three business days to give the parties time to think about the agreement that had been reached. She stated that during the cooling-off period either side could decide that they wished to withdraw from the agreement, but if they wished to do so, they should let her know by 5.00pm on 17 February 2026. [4] Also on 12 February 2026, Life Without Barriers sent an email to Mr Odika attaching a signed copy of the terms of settlement. [5] Mr Odika did not inform the conciliator by 5.00pm on 17 February 2026 that he wished to withdraw from the agreement. The Commission's file was closed administratively on 19 February 2026. [6] I am aware, from a review of the Commission’s file, that on 24 February 2026, Mr Odika sent an email to the Commission, which stated in part: “I wish to formally advise that I have now involved my legal representative in relation to the proposed settlement of my unfair dismissal matter. After reviewing the terms of [2026] FWC 2201 DECISION -- 1 of 4 -- [2026] FWC 2201 2 the agreement my lawyer has expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of the settlement amount. On that basis, I have been advised to withdraw from the current settlement agreement.” [7] On 25 February 2026, the conciliator responded to Mr Odika. She stated that, as outlined in her email of 12 February 2026. “a settlement agreement was reached at conciliation on the 12/2/26”. She stated that Mr Odika did not contact her or the Commission to advise that he wished to withdraw from the agreement as set out in her earlier email. The conciliator informed Mr Odika that if he wished to have the case re-opened he, or his representative, would need to make that request in writing. Mr Odika did so. [8] The matter has been allocated to me to determine whether the file should be re-opened, and Mr Odika given the opportunity to progress his unfair dismissal claim. Life Without Barriers opposes me reopening the file. It maintains that a binding settlement was reached at the conciliation. [9] In broad terms, Mr Odika's argument as to why I should re-open the file comes down to the proposition that the amount to which he agreed at conciliation is inadequate to compensate him for the unfairness of his dismissal. To a great extent, the evidence and submissions on which he relied went to the merits of the matter to make good, as I understand, that proposition. [10] Today it was submitted that the gravamen of Mr Odika's case is that he “should be entitled to more”. It was contended that the settlement amount was too low and Mr Odika requested that the Commission review the payout figure and award “a greater quantum of remedy”. However, none of the evidence on which Mr Odika relied, or the submissions he made, went to the question as to whether a binding settlement was reached at the conciliation. That is the question before me. [11] Stephen Doran is the Head of Employee Relations at Life Without Barriers. He gave evidence that, in his view, a settlement was reached at the conciliation. The fact that there was a binding agreement reached is evidenced by the email from the conciliator to the parties on 12 February 2026, the terms of settlement prepared by the conciliator, and the email from the conciliator to the parties of 25 February 2026 in response to Mr Odika’s request to have the file reopened. [12] Put simply, there is no evidence to suggest that an agreement was not reached at the conciliation. [13] Importantly, Mr Odika did not dispute the fact that he reached an agreement with Life Without Barriers on 12 February 2026. He also did not dispute that the terms of settlement reflected that agreement. As was submitted on his behalf today, the terms of settlement document “says what it says”. [14] Today Mr Odika submitted that the settlement had been “forced down his throat”. However, other than saying that he had requested a higher figure during the conciliation, there was no evidence to support that proposition. He did not put on any evidence -- 2 of 4 -- [2026] FWC 2201 3 to the effect that he felt that he entered into the agreement under duress, or that his judgment was in any way impaired at the time. [15] As I have said, his claim is that he should be allowed to withdraw from that agreement, as, having obtained advice, he now views the settlement amount as being inadequate. The result was that a significant amount of the evidence and submissions on which he relied went to the merits of the matter, but as I have said, Mr Odika did not focus on the question before me, which is whether an agreement was reached at the conciliation. On that question, his case distils to the proposition that he changed his mind. That is not how it works. [16] The terms of settlement provide that the agreed amount will be paid and a statement of service provided within 14 days of the parties signing the agreement. On that basis, I am of the view that the settlement is in the second category identified in Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 at 360; namely, that: “…the parties have completely agreed upon all the terms of their bargain and intend no departure from or in addition to that which their agreed terms express or imply, but nevertheless have made performance of one or more of the terms conditional upon the execution of a formal document.” [17] The agreement was subject only to the cooling-off period. Once that period elapsed on 17 February 2026 Mr Odika was bound to the deal he struck at the conciliation. The fact that he did not sign the terms of settlement does not mean that a binding agreement was not reached: Megan Bell v Singaria (Aust) Pty Ltd T/A Crown on McCredie [2020] FWC 1181 at [42]. [18] In Australia Postal Corporation v Gorman [2011] FCA 975 at [31] and [35], Besanko J observed: (1) a binding settlement extinguishes the cause of action in a proceeding, and replaces it with a new one based on the agreement; (2) the continued pursuit of an application based on an extinguished cause of action is clearly capable of being considered as without reasonable prospects of success; and (3) an application to have a matter heard where there is an agreement may result in the application being dismissed on that basis. [19] In conclusion, Mr Odika reached an agreement to settle his unfair dismissal claim at the conciliation on 12 February 2026. On the basis of that finding, and the authorities to which I have referred, Mr Odika cannot proceed with his application under section 394. The agreement reached at conciliation is a complete answer to that claim. Mr Odika's request to reopen the file is dismissed. The proceedings are dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act. -- 3 of 4 -- [2026] FWC 2201 4 COMMISSIONER Appearances: Mr B Opara, on behalf of the Applicant Ms S Sunder, on behalf of the Respondent Hearing details: 5 June 2026 AVL via Microsoft Teams Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR810993> -- 4 of 4 --