Annette Murray v Gochamp Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2750

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Annette Murray v Gochamp Pty Ltd (U2026/5239) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 6 AUGUST 2026 Application for relief from unfair dismissal – 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 13 March 2026, Annette Murray (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 Gochamp Pty Ltd (the Respondent). [2] On 18 March 2026, Commission staff contacted the Applicant and informed them that their Application was incomplete as they had not provided a sufficient response regarding the dates of their employment with the Respondent. The Applicant was directed to provide a response by 1 April 2026. The Applicant was also placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed without further notice if no response was provided within that timeframe. On the same date, Commission staff sent the Applicant an SMS alerting the Applicant to the fact that the Application required attention. Whilst the Applicant had responded to approval of her waiver application on 19 March 2026, no response was forthcoming to the Commission’s email dated 18 March 2026. [3] Commission staff telephoned the Applicant twice and left two voice messages on 20 April 2026 requesting that the Applicant return the Commission’s telephone call concerning the incomplete Application. The Applicant did not return the Commission's telephone call. [4] The matter was allocated to Chambers in May 2026. My Chambers emailed the Applicant on 12 May 2026. The Applicant was informed that their Application was incomplete as their Application did not provide a sufficient response regarding the dates of their employment with the Respondent. The Applicant was directed to provide a response within a set period and was placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if no response was received by the provided deadline. An SMS was sent to the Applicant’s mobile phone number informing them that an important email had been sent and that their Application was at risk of being dismissed. [2026] FWC 2750 DECISION AND ORDER -- 1 of 4 -- [2026] FWC 2750 2 [5] The Applicant provided a response on 12 May 2026 that they commenced employment with the Respondent in ‘early 2020’ and ‘resigned on 13 February 2026’. [6] Upon receiving the Applicant’s information regarding the resignation date, it appeared that the Application was lodged outside the 21 day statutory timeframe (see s 394(2)(a) of the Act). Accordingly, for the Application to proceed, the Applicant required an extension of time in which to lodge the Application. [7] On 13 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 relevant case law regarding extensions of time. [8] The Applicant was directed to provide a response detailing the basis upon which they said there were exceptional circumstances. Further, it was noted that if the Applicant 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 period of seven days 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. [9] On 13 May 2026, the Applicant sent an email in response stating that they ‘will send further information’. [10] My Chambers responded to the Applicant on 18 May 2026. It was unclear if the Applicant wished to continue or discontinue with their Application, they were directed to inform Chambers what they wished to do with their Application, within a set period. The Applicant was again placed on notice that their Application would be dismissed if no response was received by the deadline. [11] On 18 May 2026, the Applicant sent two emails and referred to attachments with further information. The attachments appear to have been excluded from the emails. [12] My Chambers contacted the Applicant by email on 19 May 2026, informing the Applicant that there were no attachments to the emails. The Applicant was directed to resend the emails to include the attachments, within a set period. [13] On 20 May 2026, the Applicant sent an email stating ‘yes, I accept’. On the same date, the Applicant sent a large number of emails which included shared links to access the attachments. [14] My Chambers sent a further email to the Applicant on 20 May 2026. The email noted that if they wished to continue with their Application they were directed to provide the basis upon which they said there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time. In addition, the Applicant was informed that the Commission could not access the shared links and was directed to resend the attachments in an alternative file type. The Applicant was again -- 2 of 4 -- [2026] FWC 2750 3 placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if no response was received within the set period. The Applicant did not respond to this correspondence. [15] On 24 July 2026, my Chambers sent a further email to the Applicant. The email noted that Chambers was not in receipt of a response to correspondence dated 20 May 2026. As a period of time had passed since the correspondence issued on 20 May 2026, the Applicant was provided a final opportunity to provide their response with respect to the basis on which they said there were exceptional circumstances, whether they wished to proceed with their Application, and to provide any submissions regarding the potential dismissal of the Application within a set period. The Applicant was put on notice that, absent receipt of their response and compliance with the directions issued within that timeframe, I would likely dismiss their Application on the basis that they have not engaged with advancing their Application and it therefore did not have any reasonable prospects of success. An SMS was sent to the Applicant’s mobile phone number informing them that an important email had been sent and that their Application was at risk of being dismissed. The Applicant did not respond to this correspondence. [16] 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, if the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness. In relation to this Application, the Applicant was afforded the opportunity to inform the Commission that they considered their circumstances warranted an extension of time for filing the Application by responding to the factors in s 394(3) of the Act. 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 addressing these factors. [17] 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]). [18] I am satisfied that the Applicant’s conduct in failing to sufficiently address Chambers’ correspondence in respect of the extension of time issue demonstrates that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case in a meaningful manner. [19] The Applicant has been provided with the opportunity to respond meaningfully to Chambers’ correspondence and has been on notice since 13 May 2026 of the likely consequences if they did not do so. Whilst the Applicant was directed to respond to the email from Chambers dated 20 May 2026 and 24 July 2026, no response was received. [20] 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 Annette Murray on 13 March 2026 for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is dismissed. -- 3 of 4 -- [2026] FWC 2750 4 DEPUTY PRESIDENT Matter determined on the papers Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR812344> -- 4 of 4 --