Kaylee Wright v Diabetes Australia Summary

[2025] FWC 2418

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Kaylee Wright
v

Diabetes Australia

(C2025/6149)

COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA

MELBOURNE, 18 AUGUST 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – Jurisdictional objection – Not dismissed

For the reasons given on transcript earlier today, I found that the Applicant had not been dismissed within the meaning of s. 386(1).

As Ms Wright has not been “dismissed”, a jurisdictional prerequisite required for a general protections application under s. 365 of the Act, the Commission is not able to proceed further with the application or exercise any powers conferred by s. 369. The jurisdictional objection is upheld and the application is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms K. Wright, the Applicant

Ms H. Gould, Chief people Officer, representing the Respondent

Hearing details:

2025
18 August
Via Microsoft Teams Video

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Kaylee Wright, sought a remedy for contraventions involving dismissal against her employer, Diabetes Australia. The case was heard by Commissioner Mirabella in Melbourne on August 18, 2025, and was conducted via Microsoft Teams Video. The primary issue before the Commission was whether Ms Wright had been dismissed by Diabetes Australia within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. This determination was crucial, as it would establish the Commission’s jurisdiction to proceed with the application under section 365 of the Act.

The legal issue that the Commission had to resolve was whether Ms Wright's employment had been terminated in a manner that constituted a dismissal. The applicant argued that she had been effectively dismissed when her employment was terminated. In contrast, Diabetes Australia contested this, asserting that Ms Wright had not been dismissed but rather that her employment had ended for other reasons. The Commission needed to examine the evidence and determine whether the termination of Ms Wright’s employment constituted a dismissal under the Act.

After considering the evidence presented, Commissioner Mirabella concluded that Ms Wright had not been dismissed within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act. The Commissioner found that the termination of Ms Wright’s employment was not a dismissal, as it did not meet the statutory criteria. Consequently, the jurisdictional objection raised by Diabetes Australia was upheld, and the application was dismissed. The Fair Work Commission did not have the authority to proceed with the application because the foundational requirement of Ms Wright being dismissed had not been satisfied.

Kaylee Wright v Diabetes Australia

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established