s.394 - Unfair dismissal

The Trustee For The Lifestyle Grand Unit Trust Lifestyle

• [1] On 4 February 2025, Ms. Celeste Ryan-Dengate filed an application under s 394 alleging she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with The Trustee For The Lifestyle Grand Unit Trust (Lifestyle).

• [2] On 4 March 2025, this matter was conciliated by a staff conciliator at 11:15 AM. At 1:22 PM that day, Ms. Ryan-Dengate and Lifestyle were each sent a copy of terms of a Settlement Agreement under cover of a letter dated 4 March 2025. That letter included the following:

"Thank you for your participation in today's conciliation ... I confirm you reached a settlement agreement, and I attached terms of settlement that were read to you at the end of the conciliation."

• [3] Ms. Ryan-Dengate filed an affidavit in the proceeding which was received into evidence. In that affidavit she relevantly states:
  • • She signed her counterpart of the settlement agreement on 7 March 2025 and forwarded a copy of it to Lifestyle and to the Commission.[1]
  • • On 28 March 2025 she emailed Lifestyle, which had "not yet supplied her with a copy of the Lifestyle's counterpart signed by them nor complied with the other terms contained within the document".[2]
  • • "On 10 April 2025 a sum equal to that expressed in the proposed settlement document was deposited to my bank account."[3]
  • • Lifestyle did not provide her with "a signed copy of the proposed agreement nor provided [her] with the required certificate of service" under the terms of the Agreement.[4]

• [4] Ms. Ryan-Dengate explains she subsequently developed a medical condition and was "advised to place [herself] under no further stress,"[5] which delayed her from following up on her concern.

• [5] On 15 October 2025, Ms. Ryan-Dengate emailed the Commission asking to "reopen Case U2025/1233 regarding compliance of the settlement agreement" and provided further detail in a subsequent email on 23 October 2025:

"I would like to reopen Case U2025/1233 due to clause 7 of the settlement agreement having not yet been complied with by the employer (respondent) nor has the employer signed and provided a copy of the settlement agreement to myself (applicant)."

• [6] The matter was allocated to my Chambers. I conducted a mention on 24 November 2025 by Microsoft Teams. Ms. Ryan-Dengate and her father Mr. Mark Dengate attended. Lifestyle did not attend. During the mention I explained if there was a binding settlement agreement, I may exercise my power under s 587 of the Act to dismiss the application. I also explained my power to dismiss the application in those circumstances was based on the proposition that "accord and satisfaction" had been reached, and the application had no reasonable prospects of success. I referred Ms. Ryan-Dengate and Mr. Dengate to the decision of Besanko J in Australian Postal Corporation v. Gorman.[6]

• [7] On 25 November 2025, I issued directions for the filing of material on the question whether I should exercise my discretion under s 587 to dismiss the application. Ms. Ryan-Dengate filed material. Lifestyle did not.

• [8] The matter was heard on 9 January 2025 and was attended by Ms. Ryan-Dengate and Mr. Dengate. Lifestyle did not attend. Ms. Ryan-Dengate gave evidence. Her affidavit dated 12 December 2025 was received into evidence as Exhibit A1.

• [9] Section 587 confers power on the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative should it consider the application has no reasonable prospect of success:

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

• [10] In Gorman,[7] Besanko J held:
  • • The existence of a binding settlement agreement or "accord and satisfaction" extinguishes the existing cause of action and replaces it with a new cause of action based on the agreement.[8]
  • • If there is a binding settlement agreement, the Commission has power under s 587(1) to dismiss an application as there is no reasonable prospect of success.[9]

• [11] The question here is whether a binding settlement agreement had been reached between Ms. Ryan-Dengate and Lifestyle and therefore whether the unfair dismissal application has reasonable prospects of success.

• [12] On the basis of the evidence of Ms. Ryan-Dengate, and on the inference from the letter from the staff conciliator dated 4 March 2025, I am satisfied an oral agreement was reached at the staff conciliation conference which was subsequently recorded in writing. The oral contract comes within the first category of arrangement discussed in the High Court case Masters v Cameron where:

"The parties have reached finality in arranging all the terms of their bargain and intend to be immediately bound to the performance of those terms but at the same time propose to have the terms restated in a form which will be fuller or more precise".[10]

• [13] The existence of the contract is reinforced by the fact that after Ms. Ryan-Dengate had sent her signed counterpart to Lifestyle, it complied with paragraph 4 of the Settlement Agreement by forwarding the settlement sum into her bank account. In paragraph 8 of her affidavit she states, "On 10 April 2025 a sum equal to that expressed in the proposed settlement document was deposited in my bank account."

• [14] The compliance by Lifestyle with the money term supports a conclusion that a binding agreement had been reached between it and Ms. Ryan-Dengate. The fact Lifestyle complied with this term without executing and forwarding a counterpart to Ms. Ryan-Dengate supports an inference that it considered a contract had already been formed.

• [15] I therefore find a binding settlement agreement was formed between Ms. Ryan-Dengate and Lifestyle.

• [16] The failure of Lifestyle to comply with other terms, such as the obligation to provide a statement of service in paragraph 7, can only be remedied by a cause of action for breach of contract in a relevant Court.

• [17] The parties reached a binding settlement agreement at the 4 March 2025 conference. The binding nature of the agreement is reinforced by the fact that Lifestyle subsequently paid the settlement sum without executing and forwarding a counterpart to Ms. Ryan-Dengate.

• [18] Therefore, of my own initiative I exercise my power under s 587(1)(c) to dismiss this application on the basis it has no reasonable prospects of success.

• [19] I formally order this application is dismissed.

[1] Affidavit of Celeste Ryan-Dengate at paragraph 21.

[6] [2011] FCA 975.

[7] [2011] FCA 975.

[10] [1954] HCA 72; [1954] 91 CLR 353, 360.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer