Gibbs

[2025] FWC 2421

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Gibbs

(AB2025/382)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 20 AUGUST 2025

Application for an order to stop bullying at work – whether application has reasonable prospects of success

On 8 May 2025, Ms Christine Gibbs applied for an order to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in relation to Granny’s Bonnet Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Aquilegia Family Trust trading as Lazy Moes Bendigo (Lazy Moes) and a person with whom Ms Gibbs interacted while at work in the business of Lazy Moes.

Ms Gibbs has not worked for the business since her last shift on 4 May 2025. On the information before me, and on or about 16 May 2025, Ms Gibbs advised the business that she would not be returning. As things presently stand, Ms Gibbs is no longer at work in the business of Lazy Moes and is no longer interacting with the individual named in the application in any work context. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is any risk that Ms Gibbs will continue to be bullied at work as alleged in her application. It follows that the Commission could make any orders in the matter and the application has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

Order

The application (AB2025/382) is dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Hearing details:

Determined on the papers.

[1] Shaw v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Anor [2014] FWC 3408.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Federal Court was brought by a former employee, seeking an injunction to prevent her former employer from continuing to bully her in the workplace. The respondent, the employer, sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant did not have reasonable prospects of success. The application was brought pursuant to section 88 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides for the Court to make orders to protect employees from bullying in the workplace. The applicant alleged that she had been subjected to sustained bullying by her employer, including verbal abuse, threats, and exclusion from work activities. She further alleged that the employer had failed to take appropriate action to address the bullying, and that the bullying had continued despite her complaints.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of success in her application for an injunction to stop the bullying. The Court noted that an application for an interlocutory injunction requires the applicant to establish that they have a serious question to be tried, and that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. The Court also noted that the applicant must demonstrate that they have reasonable prospects of success on the merits of their case. In considering whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of success, the Court considered the evidence presented by both parties, and the applicable legal principles.

In its reasoning, the Court found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bullying in the workplace. The Court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to establish that she had been subjected to sustained and unreasonable behaviour that created a risk to her health and safety. However, the Court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the employer had failed to take appropriate action to address the bullying, or that the bullying had continued despite her complaints. The Court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that she would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the Court found that the applicant did not have reasonable prospects of success in her application for an injunction.

The Court dismissed the application, and made no orders in relation to the application. The Court noted that its decision was based on the evidence presented before it, and that the applicant was free to pursue other remedies available to her under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established