Anjum Faiz v Convenience Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2462

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Anjum Faiz v Convenience Holdings Pty Ltd (U2025/18285) COMMISSIONER SLOAN SYDNEY, 1 JULY 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy Introduction [1] On 19 November 2025, Anjum Faiz commenced unfair dismissal proceedings under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) against his former employer, Convenience Holdings Pty Ltd. [2] A conciliation was conducted by a Fair Work Commission Conciliator on 14 January 2026, during which Mr Faiz was represented (with permission) by Paul Smith, a lawyer from Legal Aid ACT. The parties agreed on terms to resolve the matter, which were to be documented in the Commission’s standard settlement agreement. [3] Later on 14 January 2026, Mr Faiz sent an email to the Commission stating: “I have just finished my conciliation with another party which I have decided not to accept. This was insulting for me to be offered Aud 2000 as I worked for the company totally for 7Eleven for 11 plus years. I felt in the meeting, my case was not presented well in the meeting and I am rejecting the offer and would like to present my case myself. I am confident I have not done anything wrong and my termination is unfair.” [4] It is unclear whether the Conciliator saw that email, as it was not addressed to them. In any event, later that day 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 stated: “I confirm that the parties have agreed to waive the cooling off period that applied to this agreement.” [5] The parties engaged in email correspondence, some of which was copied to the Commission. Convenience Holdings sent an email to the Commission, asking to speak to the Conciliator. Consequently, on 16 January 2026 a member of the Commission’s Dispute Resolution Support Team sent an email to the parties stating: [2026] FWC 2462 DECISION -- 1 of 6 -- [2026] FWC 2462 2 “As per the letter sent to parties on the 14 January, the matter was settled at conciliation, the Commissions [sic] role in the process ends. This means the case is administratively closed. If the Applicant wishes to request the matter be reopened, this request will be sent to a Commission Member for consideration. If the Member grants the reopen request a Commission Member will manage the case moving forward. If the Applicant can confirm that they wish to request the matter be reopened, the request will be sent to a Commission Member for consideration. …” [6] Mr Faiz has applied to have the matter reopened. Convenience Holdings opposes the application. Mr Faiz’s arguments [7] The premise of Mr Faiz’s application is that Mr Smith had given him poor advice during the conciliation and, indeed, had acted contrary to his instructions. That is, despite Mr Faiz having instructed Mr Smith that he only wanted reinstatement, Mr Smith sought only compensation. Mr Faiz stated that Mr Smith did not fully explain to him what was going on in the conciliation, leaving him confused as to the matters being discussed at the conciliation, and then put pressure on him to agree to a settlement. Mr Faiz claimed that he was completely unaware of the cooling off period and was not told that it was to be waived. Consideration [8] I do not accept Mr Faiz’s contentions. I find that there is no basis to his contentions that Mr Smith acted inappropriately during the conciliation. My reasons follow. [9] Convenience Holdings gave a description of the conciliation. It said that Mr Faiz’s opening position at the conciliation was to request compensation of $10,000 and that he be permitted to resign in place of having been dismissed. The company stated that the parties went backwards and forwards over the amount before agreement was reached on $2,000. The company submitted, and I accept, that it is difficult to comprehend how Mr Faiz could have been unaware that the discussion was about compensation only. His failure to raise any objection at the time calls into question his attempts to now accuse Mr Smith of acting against instructions. [10] Convenience Holdings also stated that the conciliation was conducted in an “orthodox fashion”. That is, the Conciliator made introductory comments about the purpose of conciliation; there were negotiations involving offers and counter-offers; and, once an agreement reached, the Conciliator reiterated the agreed terms to the parties on the understanding that the Conciliator would circulate terms of settlement in the Commission’s usual form to reflect that agreement. The company also stated that the Conciliator explained the cooling off period and what it meant, and that Mr Faiz, through Mr Smith, agreed to waive the cooling off period. -- 2 of 6 -- [2026] FWC 2462 3 [11] Mr Faiz did not greatly challenge that version of events, other than to say that he could not recall any discussion of a cooling off period. [12] Significantly, following the hearing before me, Mr Faiz applied for leave to file further documents. Many of those documents were copies of email correspondence between himself and Mr Smith following the conciliation. If anything, the documents only serve to exonerate Mr Smith of any wrongdoing and confirm that a settlement agreement was reached at the conciliation. [13] The email correspondence between Mr Faiz and Mr Smith took place on 15 January 2026. The relevant extracts are as follows: (1) At 11.27AM Mr Faiz wrote: “Hi Paul, Thank you for your email and help, I really appreciate it. But I have rejected the offer and sent an email through to fair work commission.” (2) At 11.43AM Mr Smith wrote: Dear Anjum You are unable to do that as you agreed to the settlement in clear terms yesterday. In the circumstances Legal Aid ACT cannot act for you further unless you retract that email to the Fair Work Commission immediately. I look forward to your response by 12.30 pm today.” (3) At 12.12PM Mr Smith wrote: “Dear Anjum Find attached Standard Terms of Settlement as drafted by the Conciliator following yesterday’s conciliation conference which accurately reflects the agreement reached at the conference.” (4) At 12.22PM Mr Faiz wrote: “Hi Paul, I was not in the right state of mind , today I have reconsidered my decision that I am not accepting this contract as I am confident that my job should not be terminated. I have done nothing wrong and my dismissal is unfair.” -- 3 of 6 -- [2026] FWC 2462 4 (5) At 12.36PM Mr Smith wrote: “Dear Anjum I refer to your email just received by you that you also forwarded to the Fair Work Commission. … I note that it was repeated to you by myself and the Conciliator both in separate conference and in joint conference (with 7 Eleven’s representative present) the terms of the settlement. You made it clear that you understood the terms of the settlement being reached. … If you wish to reconsider your position and accept the resolution of the proceedings as agreed to yesterday by you, you will need to advise me by 1 pm today.” (Emphasis in original) (6) At 2.10PM Mr Smith wrote: Dear Anjum I confirm that our retainer in this matter is now complete following your instructions not to resolve the matter in the Fair Work Commission (‘FWC’) in accordance with the agreement reached at the Conciliation Conference yesterday. Accordingly we have advised your former employer and the FWC that we no longer act on your behalf. … I note that it was repeated to you by myself and the Conciliator both in separate conference and in joint conference (with 7 Eleven’s representative present) the terms of the settlement. You made it clear that you understood the terms of the settlement being reached. …” [14] In light of this correspondence, and having regard to Convenience Holdings’ evidence, I reject Mr Faiz’s contention that he did not comprehend the settlement to which he was agreeing. I am satisfied that an agreement was reached at conciliation. Mr Faiz might have changed his mind about the deal he had reached, but the deal was done. He had agreed to waive the cooling off period, as evidenced by Convenience Holdings’ description of the conciliation and the Conciliator’s email to the parties on 14 January 2026. -- 4 of 6 -- [2026] FWC 2462 5 [15] In Masters v Cameron,1 the High Court considered the difference between binding contracts and non-binding terms agreed to form the basis for negotiation of a contract. It described three separate categories: (1) The more common form of a binding contract, where parties have agreed on all terms and intend to be immediately bound to perform those terms, but at the same time propose to have the terms restated in a form which will be fuller or more precise while not different in effect. The contract is binding whether the contemplated formal document comes into existence or not; (2) A binding contract, where the parties have agreed on all terms and intend no departure from, or 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. The contract binds the parties to join in bringing the formal contract into existence and then to carry it into execution; or (3) A record of terms, where the intention of the parties is not to make a concluded agreement at all, unless and until they execute a formal contract. A typical example is an agreement made ‘subject to contract’. [16] I am of the view that the settlement is in the first category identified in Masters v Cameron. The parties reached agreement on all of the terms they required in settlement of the unfair dismissal application. They agreed to waive the cooling off period, which indicates that they intended to be immediately bound by the terms of the agreement reached. They agreed that the settlement would be formally recorded, but with no different effect, in terms of settlement prepared by the Commission. The settlement is binding on the parties. [17] In Australia Postal Corporation v Gorman,2 Besanko J observed that: (1) a binding settlement extinguishes the cause of action in a proceeding, and replaces it with a new one based on the agreement;3 and (2) the Commission has the power under section 587(1) of the Act to recognise a binding settlement and to dismiss an application that has no reasonable prospects of success. The continued pursuit of an application based on an extinguished cause of action is clearly capable of being considered as being without reasonable prospects of success.4 Conclusion [18] I am satisfied that the parties agreed to settle Mr Faiz’s unfair dismissal application on 14 January 2026. That settlement is binding on the parties and is a complete answer to Mr Faiz’s unfair dismissal application. Consequently, the application has no reasonable prospects of success. 1 (1954) 91 CLR 353 at 360 2 [2011] FCA 975 3 [2011] FCA 975 at [31] 4 [2011] FCA 975 at [33] -- 5 of 6 -- [2026] FWC 2462 6 [19] Mr Faiz’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act. COMMISSIONER Appearances: Anjum Faiz appearing on his own behalf Natalie Mill appearing for the respondent Hearing details: AVL via Microsoft Teams 20 April 2026 Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811591> -- 6 of 6 --