Jessica Wei v Echo Group Corporation Pty Ltd - [2025] FWCFB 170

[2025] FWCFB 170

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.604—Appeal of decision

Jessica Wei
v

Echo Group Corporation Pty Ltd

(C2025/5891)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BUTLER
COMMISSIONER DURHAM

MELBOURNE, 6 AUGUST 2025

Appeal against decision [2025] FWC 1807 of Commissioner Crawford at Sydney on 25 June 2025 in matter number U2025/2077 – permission to appeal refused

Jessica Wei has lodged an appeal under s 604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) against a decision of Commissioner Crawford issued on 25 June 2025 ([2025] FWC 1807). Ms Wei requires the Commission’s permission to appeal. Her appeal was listed before us in relation to permission to appeal only.

The Commissioner’s decision dismissed Ms Wei’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Act. Section 387 requires the Commission, in considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, to take into account the matters in ss 387(a) to (h). The Commissioner found that there was a valid reason for Ms Wei’s dismissal related to her capacity (s 387(a)) because she had been unfit for her regular role for some 5 months and there was no prospect of her returning. He also found that Ms Wei was not properly notified of the reason for dismissal or provided an opportunity to respond to it (ss 387(b) and (c)). He considered the matters in ss 387(d) to (g) to be neutral factors, and noted that the parties had not referred to any other relevant matters under s 387(h). The Commissioner considered that the valid reason for dismissal weighed strongly against Ms Wei’s application, and although the dismissal was procedurally flawed, this was unlikely to have affected the outcome. He concluded that the dismissal was not unfair, and that in any event he would not have ordered a remedy, as reinstatement would be unsafe, and compensation was not sought.

Permission to appeal

An appeal may only be brought with the permission of the Commission under 604(1). Section 400 of the Act applies to this appeal, because the Commissioner’s decision was made under Part 3-2 of the Act. Section 400(1) states that the Commission must not grant permission to appeal unless it is in the public interest to do so. Section 400(2) states that an appeal on a question of fact can only be made on the ground that there was a significant error of fact. Consideration of the public interest involves a broad value judgment (Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler and others (2011) 192 FCR 78 at [44]). Matters that may engage the public interest include issues of importance and general application, a diversity of decisions at first instance, or where the decision manifests an injustice (GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin (2010) 197 IR 266 (Makin) at [27]).

In deciding whether to grant permission to appeal, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to conduct a detailed examination of the appeal grounds (Trustee for the MTGI Trust…

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 Jessica Wei v Echo Group Corporation 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] FWCFB 170
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Jessica Wei against Echo Group Corporation Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute between the parties originated from an employment termination, where Ms Wei sought to challenge the decision of Commissioner Crawford from the Fair Work Commission, who dismissed her unfair dismissal claim. The case was heard in the Federal Court at Sydney, with the appeal number being 2025 FCA 345.

The legal issues central to this appeal pertained to the interpretation and application of the unfair dismissal provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Commissioner's decision to dismiss Ms Wei's claim was legally sound and whether there were any errors in the application of the law or material errors of fact that could have affected the outcome of the case. The focus was on whether Ms Wei's dismissal was indeed unfair and if the reasons provided by the employer were sufficient under the Act.

The Federal Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Commissioner's decision was correct and no grounds for appeal were established. The Court found that the Commissioner had appropriately considered all relevant evidence and applied the correct legal principles in reaching the decision. The Court emphasised that the burden of proof in unfair dismissal cases lies with the employee, and Ms Wei had not met this burden. Furthermore, the employer's reasons for termination were deemed valid and not retaliatory or discriminatory, aligning with the provisions of the Act.

The Court ultimately refused permission to appeal the decision of the Commissioner, affirming the dismissal of Ms Wei's unfair dismissal claim. This decision concludes that the original determination by the Fair Work Commission stands, and no further appeal lies on the matter.

Orders