Lisa Hall v First Class Hampers Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 3162

[2025] FWC 3162

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lisa Hall
v

First Class Hampers Pty Ltd

(U2025/14961)

COMMISSIONER PERICA

MELBOURNE, 22 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

BACKGROUND FACTS

On 7 August 2025, Ms. Lisa Hall was handed a letter signed by Mr. Tom Spoljaric, the Warehouse and Supply Chain Manager at First Class Hampers Pty Ltd (“First Class”). The letter confirmed her “employment with [First Class] will terminate due to redundancy”. It went on:

“Your employment will be terminated effective today. Based on your employment contract, you are entitled to 4 weeks’ notice of termination of employment, You are not required to work your notice period and will be paid in lieu of notice. You will be paid in lieu of notice.

You will be paid 7 weeks redundancy pay in accordance with the National Employment Standards. Your employment standards Your employment entitlements, including any outstanding pay and leave will also be paid out.”

At the 7 August meeting where Ms. Hall was given this letter, she was either instructed or requested to work one week of her notice period until 15 August 2025. As it transpired, she did attend work until 15 August 2025.

After her final day at work, Ms. Hall was provided with an explanation of the elements of her termination pay and an Employment Separation Certificate that contained a series of errors. They mistakenly recorded her termination day as 3 September 2024. She was not paid her termination pay until 8 September 2025.

On 15 September 2025 at 1:35 PM, Ms. Hall filed an unfair dismissal Form F2 in that form she gives as the date she was told about being dismissed as “07-08-2025” and the date the dismissal took effect as “15 08 2025.”

When was the termination date?

On 7 August 2025, Ms. Hall was informed in writing she would be terminated that day and that she would be paid four weeks in lieu of notice. In the 7 August meeting, the parties agreed she would work one more week. Her last day at work was 15 August 2024. It follows the date of the termination was on 15 August 2025.

Was the Application made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect?

The 21-day period does not include the day on which the dismissal took effect.[1]

Ms. Hall’s application was filed at 1:35 PM (AEST) on 15 September 2025. It was made 10 days late. I therefore need to consider whether to make an order to extend the period to make the application.

I may allow a further period for an unfair dismissal application if I am satisfied there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

(a) Ms. Hall’s reason for the delay.

(b) when Ms. Hall first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect.

(c) any action taken by Ms. Hall to dispute the dismissal.

(d) prejudice to First Class (including prejudice caused by the delay).

(e) the merits of the application;…

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 Lisa Hall v First Class Hampers 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 3162
Decision Date: 22 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lisa Hall, an employee of First Class Hampers Pty Ltd, filed an application for unfair dismissal after being terminated from her position as Warehouse Supervisor. The dismissal was allegedly due to redundancy, and Ms. Hall claims the termination lacked genuineness as she was not offered redeployment opportunities. First Class Hampers contested the application on the basis that it was filed outside the 21-day statutory period and requested the Commission to dismiss the application. The central legal issues were whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the application period and whether the dismissal was unfair.

The Commission examined several factors to determine if there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit for filing the unfair dismissal application. These factors included Ms. Hall's reasons for the delay, when she became aware of the dismissal, any actions she took to dispute the dismissal, prejudice to the employer, the merits of the application, and fairness to other persons in a similar position. The Commission found that Ms. Hall's reasons for the delay were inadequate, as she was informed of the time limit and confused about her termination date, which was not reasonable. Additionally, she took no steps to dispute the dismissal with her employer before filing the application. The merits of the application could not be determined due to conflicting evidence. The Commission concluded that the factors weighing against granting an extension outweighed the neutral considerations, leading to the decision that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of time. Consequently, the application for unfair dismissal was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal, finding that there were no exceptional circumstances to extend the 21-day period for filing the application. The reasons for the delay provided by Ms. Hall were deemed inadequate, and she failed to take any action to dispute the dismissal with her employer before filing the application. The Commission highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the necessity of consistent application of the law.

Orders