Abigail Ward v Woolworths (W.A.) Pty Limited [2026] FWC 2280

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Abigail Ward v Woolworths (W.A.) Pty Limited (U2026/9347) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 1 JULY 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – Application lodged outside statutory timeframe under s 394(2)(a) – extension of time for lodgement required in accordance with s 394(2)(b) – dismissal under s 587(3)(a) for want of prosecution [1] On 22 May 2026, Abigail Ward (the Applicant) lodged an unfair dismissal application (the Application) under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) alleging that they were unfairly dismissed by Woolworths (W.A.) Pty Limited (the Respondent). [2] In their Application, the Applicant indicated that their dismissal took effect on 23 April 2026. The Application was therefore lodged outside the 21 day statutory timeframe (see s 394(2)(a) of the Act). Accordingly, the Applicant is required to seek an extension of time under s 394(2)(b) of the Act. [3] On 26 May 2026, my Chambers emailed the parties regarding the extension of time issue. The Applicant was informed that their Application was lodged outside the 21 day statutory timeframe and that the extension of time for filing the Application would only be granted if the Commission found that there were exceptional circumstances and considered it fair and equitable to grant an extension (see s 394(3) of the Act). The correspondence referred the Applicant to s 394(3)(a)–(f) of the Act and case law regarding extensions of time. [4] The Applicant was directed to provide a response detailing the basis upon which they said there were exceptional circumstances. It was expressed to the Applicant that my preliminary view, based on the material filed, was that exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated. Further, it was noted to the Applicant that if they considered that their circumstances were not exceptional and they preferred to discontinue their application they could do so, by notifying Chambers by email of their discontinuance. The correspondence provided the Applicant a set period in which to respond. The Applicant was placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if no response was received by the deadline. The Applicant did not respond to this correspondence. [5] My Chambers sent a further email to the Applicant on 12 June 2026. The email noted that Chambers was not in receipt of a response to the initial correspondence. The Applicant was [2026] FWC 2280 DECISION AND ORDER -- 1 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 2280 2 again directed to provide a response detailing the basis upon which they said there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time. The Applicant was again placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if no response was received by 19 June 2026 on the basis that they have not engaged with advancing their Application and it therefore does not have any reasonable prospects of success. The Applicant did not respond to this correspondence. [6] Further, an SMS was sent to the Applicant’s nominated telephone on 22 June 2026 to alert the Applicant to the fact that the Application required attention. The Applicant was again informed that the Application would be dismissed if no response was received within a set period. The Commission has not received a response to date. [7] Section 587 of the Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is apparent that an applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings that they commenced. Section 587(3)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness. In relation to this Application, the Applicant was afforded the opportunity to advise the Commission that they considered their circumstances warranted an extension of time for filing the Application. Additionally, the Applicant was placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if they did not provide a response to my Chambers. [8] If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case, the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]). [9] I am satisfied that the Applicant’s conduct in failing to respond to my Chambers’ correspondence dated 26 May 2026, 12 June 2026 or 22 June 2026 in respect of the extension of time issue demonstrates that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case. [10] The Applicant has been provided with the opportunity to inform the Commission that they wish to proceed with the Application and has been on notice since 26 May 2026 of the likely consequences if they did not do so. To date, the Commission has received no response. [11] For these reasons, I have decided to dismiss the application on my own initiative for want of prosecution, utilising the facility provided for by s 587(3)(a) of the Act. I make the following order: A. The application lodged by Abigail Ward on 22 May 2026 for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is dismissed. -- 2 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 2280 3 DEPUTY PRESIDENT Matter determined on the papers Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811206> -- 3 of 3 --