Amit Singh v Insulect Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 1495

[2025] FWC 1495

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Amit Singh
v

Insulect Australia Pty Ltd

(U2024/15155)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GRAYSON

SYDNEY, 30 MAY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - application to dismiss pursuant to s.587 - parties had executed release agreement- application to dismiss pursuant to s.399A - parties had executed release agreement and failure to comply with directions- signed release agreement – application has no reasonable prospects of success - application for an unfair dismissal remedy dismissed

This decision concerns an application made under s.399A and/or s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Insulect Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent) to dismiss an unfair dismissal application brought against it by Mr Amit Singh (the Applicant/Singh).

On 17 December 2024, Mr Singh made an application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Act for a remedy, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Respondent. On 7 January 2025 the Respondent filed its response by way of a Form F3. In that response the Respondent raised a concern that the Applicant had entered into a legally binding settlement agreement that precluded Mr Singh from commencing or maintaining this proceeding.

Following various failures on the part of the Applicant to comply with directions the Respondent filed an application to dismiss Mr Singh’s application. The Respondent’s application relies on Mr Singh’s repeated failure to comply with the Commission’s directions and also that he has entered into a binding release agreement. The power to dismiss the original application may arise by virtue of s.399A or s.587 of the Act. The dismissal is pursued under either s.399A(1)(b) or (c) or s.587(1)(b) or (c) of the Act.

In response Mr Singh submits that he did comply with the directions of the Commission and, essentially, that he was pressured into signing the release agreement in circumstances where he was unable to get legal advice.

For the reasons that follow, the Respondent’s application under s.587 is granted and Mr Singh’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed.

Background

Mr Singh’s application was listed for staff conciliation on 17 January 2025. The matter did not settle and it was subsequently allocated to my Chambers on 11 February 2025.

On 24 February 2025, the matter was listed for case management conference (mention and directions) on 4 March 2025 by Microsoft Teams and directions were issued by email for the filing and service of outlines of argument and witness statements regarding the jurisdictional objection made by the Respondent, the merits of the application and remedy. The directions also required the parties to confirm their attendance prior to the case management conference by sending an email to Chambers.

At the case management conference on 4 March 2025, I explained the obligations of the parties to comply with the directions and the nature of the directions, particularly the deadlines for the filing of evidence for each respective party.

Following the case management conference on 4…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Amit Singh v Insulect Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 1495
Decision Date: 30 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an application made by Insulect Australia Pty Ltd to dismiss an unfair dismissal application brought against it by Mr Amit Singh. Mr Singh alleged that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Respondent. In response, the Respondent raised a concern that the Applicant had entered into a legally binding settlement agreement that precluded Mr Singh from commencing or maintaining this proceeding. The Respondent also argued that Mr Singh had failed to comply with the Commission’s directions. The Respondent’s application to dismiss the unfair dismissal application relied on Mr Singh’s repeated failure to comply with the Commission’s directions and also that he had entered into a binding release agreement. The power to dismiss the original application may arise by virtue of s.399A or s.587 of the Act. The dismissal is pursued under either s.399A(1)(b) or (c) or s.587(1)(b) or (c) of the Act.

The court found that the release agreement was an accord and satisfaction, which extinguished the existing cause of action and replaced it with a new cause of action based on the agreement. The agreed terms bar Mr Singh from pursuing any claims related to his employment with the Respondent, including the termination of employment and the circumstances leading up to that termination. The release agreement was complied with by the Respondent. The release agreement is a complete answer to Mr Singh’s application. As a result, Mr Singh’s cause of action was extinguished and his unfair dismissal application is without reasonable prospects of success, as per the terminology in s.587(1)(c) of the Act. The court concluded that the Respondent’s application to dismiss Mr Singh’s application under s.587 of the Act should be granted. The application for unfair dismissal remedy filed by Mr Singh on 17 December 2024 was dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Act.

The court noted that the Commission may dismiss an application if it has no reasonable prospects of success pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. The court found that Mr Singh’s application had no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed. The court also noted that the Commission does not have the power to set an agreement aside and that an application to set aside a Deed is not a matter to be entertained by the Commission. The court concluded that the release agreement was a binding settlement agreement that bars Mr Singh from bringing his application. The court further noted that the Respondent’s application to dismiss these proceedings relied on Mr Singh’s repeated failure to comply with the Commission’s directions and also that he had entered into a binding release agreement. The court found that the application should be dismissed as it is frivolous or has no reasonable prospects of success (s.587) or because the Applicant has failed to comply with directions of the Commission (s.399A(1)(b)) and/or failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement had been concluded (s.399A(1)(c)).

Orders