Krystal Attenborough v Olaoluwa Company Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 124

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Krystal Attenborough
v

Olaoluwa Company Pty Ltd

(U2024/14737)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 14 JANUARY 2025

Unfair dismissal application – application dismissed

Earlier today, I dismissed an application made by Krystal Attenborough (applicant) under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). Olaoluwa Company Pty Ltd (respondent) had objected to the application on the ground that it did not dismiss the applicant. At today’s mention, the applicant confirmed that she was never employed by the respondent. She had been employed by a partnership that owned the pharmacy in which she worked. The pharmacy was bought by the respondent, which then made offers of employment to some of the partnership’s employees, but not to her. It was clear that the applicant was not dismissed by the respondent because it never employed her. Only a person who has been dismissed may apply for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Act. The application was therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

K. Attenborough for herself
F. Olanrewaju for the respondent

Hearing details:
2025
Melbourne (by telephone)
14 January

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Krystal Attenborough lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against Olaoluwa Company Pty Ltd. The applicant, Krystal Attenborough, claimed she was unfairly dismissed by the respondent, who had purchased a pharmacy business that she had worked for. The respondent, Olaoluwa Company Pty Ltd, denied the applicant’s claim, arguing that it had not dismissed her because she was never their employee. The case was heard in Melbourne on 14 January 2025 by Deputy President Colman.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Krystal Attenborough had been dismissed by the respondent, Olaoluwa Company Pty Ltd. The applicant argued that the purchase of the pharmacy by the respondent constituted a dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent contended that no dismissal had occurred as the applicant was never their employee but had been employed by a partnership that owned the pharmacy. The court needed to determine the validity of the applicant's claim and whether she had standing to apply for unfair dismissal remedies.

The court found that the applicant had not been dismissed by the respondent as she was never employed by the respondent. Instead, she was employed by a partnership that owned the pharmacy. The respondent made offers of employment to some of the partnership’s employees but did not offer one to the applicant. The court concluded that the applicant did not meet the statutory requirement of being dismissed to be eligible for unfair dismissal remedies. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for unfair dismissal remedies made by Krystal Attenborough against Olaoluwa Company Pty Ltd be dismissed. The respondent's objection to the application was upheld, and no further action was required in relation to the application.

Krystal Attenborough v Olaoluwa Company Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established