Legal Research
Cases
Louteesha North v NA Realty Pty Ltd

Louteesha North v NA Realty Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 617

Dismissal

Jurisdiction

Settlement

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] FWC 617

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Louteesha North
v

NA Realty Pty Ltd

(C2025/792)

COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Further to the decision issued in transcript yesterday, the jurisdictional objection (not dismissed) raised by the Respondent is dismissed.

Because the jurisdictional objection was dismissed, I then conducted a conference to deal with the matter as required by s.368 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the matter between the parties was settled. The Commission’s function in this matter is now concluded.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Louteesha North v NA Realty Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 617
Case: [2025] FWC 617
Decision Date: 28 FEBRUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Louteesha North, an employee, brought a case against her employer, NA Realty Pty Ltd, before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on alleged dismissal by the employer, with the employee seeking remedies under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the employer had contravened the general protections afforded to employees under the Act and, if so, what remedies were appropriate.

The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly Section 365, which outlines the general protections against unfair dismissal. The Commission had to ascertain whether the dismissal was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, or whether it constituted an unlawful act under the legislation. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider the jurisdictional objection raised by the employer, determining if the Commission had the authority to hear the matter.

In dismissing the jurisdictional objection, the Commission found that it had the requisite authority to hear the case. The Commission then engaged in a conference with the parties involved, as mandated by Section 368 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Through this conference, the parties reached a settlement, thus resolving the dispute. Consequently, the Commission concluded its function in the matter, and no further orders were necessary.

Orders