Helen Dickins v Skybridge Management Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2214

[2025] FWC 2214

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Helen Dickins
v

Skybridge Management Pty Ltd

(U2025/5952)

COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD

SYDNEY, 30 JULY 2025

Unfair dismissal application – dispute about dismissal date – extension of time required – exceptional circumstances found – extension of time granted.

Background

Helen Dickins commenced employment with Skybridge Management Pty Ltd (Skybridge) in a reception and administration role at its Inverell office on around 6 November 2023. Ms Dickins’ employment ended at the initiative of Skybridge on the ground of redundancy in April 2025. The effective date of dismissal is in dispute. Skybridge argued that Ms Dickins’ dismissal was communicated to her via email on 21 and 22 April 2025 and took effect on 22 April 2025. Ms Dickins argued that she did not receive the relevant emails on 21 and 22 April 2025, and that she did not become aware of her dismissal until 24 April 2025. The dismissal date is important because Ms Dickins’ application was filed on 14 May 2025. That date was within 21 days of the dismissal, if it took effect on 24 April 2025. However, if Skybridge is correct and the dismissal took effect on 22 April 2025, Ms Dickins needs an extension to file her unfair dismissal application.

This decision concerns the effective date of Ms Dickins’ dismissal and, if required, whether an extension of time should be granted. A hearing was conducted via video on 29 July 2025. Ms Dickins represented herself at the hearing. I granted permission for Skybridge to be represented by Brodie Verri (Avern McIntyre & Co) on the basis that granting representation would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. Ms Dickins provided a witness statement dated 16 July 2025. Jason Birch (Managing Director) provided a witness statement dated 25 July 2025 on behalf of Skybridge. Ms Dickins and Mr Birch were cross-examined during the hearing on 29 July 2025.

Dismissal date

Ms Dickins gave compelling evidence that she did not receive emails sent by Mr Birch on 21 and 22 April 2025 regarding her dismissal. Ms Dickins also sought assistance from an external specialist who provided a report which indicates that Mr Birch’s email on 22 April 2025 was not located in Ms Dickins’ email account.

Mr Birch provided copies of emails he sent to Ms Dickins’ personal email address on 21 and 22 April 2025 which had her termination letter attached. Mr Birch gave evidence that he sent the emails to the email address nominated by Ms Dickins and was not advised that the emails were not received.

I am confused about what has occurred in relation to Mr Birch’s emails to Ms Dickins on 21 and 22 April 2025. Ms Dickins is adamant she did not receive either email. Ms Dickins’ conduct in attending work on 22 April 2025 is not consistent with her being aware that her role had been made redundant. Skybridge’s conduct in requesting a medical certificate from Ms Dickins…

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 Helen Dickins v Skybridge Management 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 2214
Decision Date: 30 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Helen Dickins, an employee of Skybridge Management Pty Ltd, sought relief from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an alleged unfair dismissal. The primary dispute centred on the effective date of her dismissal, with Skybridge asserting that the dismissal was communicated via email on 21 and 22 April 2025 and took effect on 22 April 2025. Ms Dickins contested this, claiming she did not receive the relevant emails and only became aware of her dismissal on 24 April 2025. This timing was crucial as Ms Dickins’ application was filed on 14 May 2025, which was within the 21-day statutory period if the dismissal took effect on 24 April 2025. However, if the dismissal took effect on 22 April 2025, she needed an extension of time to file her application. The court had to determine the effective date of the dismissal and, if necessary, whether an extension of time for filing the unfair dismissal application should be granted.

The court examined several legal issues, including the effective date of Ms Dickins' dismissal and whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an extension of time for filing the unfair dismissal application. The court considered Ms Dickins’ evidence that she did not receive the emails from Skybridge's Managing Director, Jason Birch, regarding her dismissal. However, the court found that Mr Birch had provided documentary evidence that he sent the emails to Ms Dickins’ personal email address on 21 and 22 April 2025, including copies of the termination letter. Despite Ms Dickins’ insistence that she did not receive the emails, the court concluded that the emails were sent and, therefore, they are considered to have been received by Ms Dickins when they were capable of being retrieved from her email account on 21 and 22 April 2025. Given this finding, the court determined that Ms Dickins was dismissed on 22 April 2025, making her unfair dismissal application filed one day late. Consequently, the court had to assess whether exceptional circumstances existed to grant an extension of time for filing the application.

In assessing whether exceptional circumstances existed, the court considered various factors, including the reason for the delay, whether Ms Dickins first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect, any action taken by Ms Dickins to dispute the dismissal, prejudice to the employer, the merits of the application, and fairness to other employees. The court found that Ms Dickins’ confusion about the dismissal date was unusual and uncommon, and the merits of the application also weighed in favour of finding exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that the exceptional circumstances were sufficient to warrant an extension of time for filing the unfair dismissal application. As a result, the court granted an extension, allowing the application to proceed according to the Commission’s normal processes.

Orders