Fair Work Act 2009

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Lawyers in Sydney
Lawyers in Melbourne
Lawyers in Brisbane
Lawyers in Perth
Family lawyers
Employment lawyers
Criminal lawyers
Wills and estates lawyers
Find a lawyer

Company

Pricing
API
Privacy
Terms
Support
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Commonwealth
New South Wales
Queensland
Victoria
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

Zoe gives general legal information, not legal advice. For the authoritative text, check the official register of the law's own jurisdiction, such as the Federal Register of Legislation for Commonwealth laws.

Gijin Baek [2026] FWC 367 | Case summary | Zoe

Zoe

Legislation Cases Guides Find a lawyer Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Ask Zoe →

Home/Cases/[2026] FWC 367

CTHFWC

Gijin Baek [2026] FWC 367 (5 February 2026)

[2026] FWC 367

Fair Work Commission|2026-02-05

View original source

General information, not legal advice.

Ask Zoe about this case

Free, no account needed. General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Fair Work Commission

Decision date

2026-02-05

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Related plain-English guides

Unfair dismissal at the Fair Work Commission (Form F2)Australia (Commonwealth)
Recover unpaid wages through Fair Work Ombudsman and small claimsAustralia (Commonwealth)
Unfair deactivation for gig and employee-like workersAustralia (Commonwealth)

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

[1]

The application under s.394 of the (Cth) made by Mr Gijin Baek on 16 October 2025 is dismissed.

Fair Work Act 2009

[2]

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Legislation Cited (1)

Work Act 2009

Cases Cited (1)

[7] The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]- [16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Find a lawyer

Employment lawyers across Australia: our picks by city

ZoeLaw is not a law firm. Picks are our opinion; we don't share your details.