The Commission may forward your correspondence and documents to the other party. If you are concerned about correspondence or a document being forwarded by the Commission, you should contact the Commission before sending it.

This concludes my role in the process. If any queries arise about implementing the terms of settlement, please contact the other party directly.

• [9] At 6.38am on 18 September 2025, the Applicant sent an email to Mr Wade in the following terms;

I'm writing to confirm that I will be representing myself in all further matters relating to the settlement. I have accepted the offer in good faith and will be finalizing the agreement independently. I no longer authorize Ben Swan or ADS or peter Anderson to act on my behalf.

This decision follows unresolved concerns regarding fee transparency and evasive conduct post- conciliation. I am not prepared to authorize any further billing or representation. My acceptance of the offer was a considered decision based on strategic priorities not a concession under pressure and I expect the deed to reflect the original terms without additions or ambiguity.

I'm happy to communicate directly to ensure the process is completed promptly and without complication. Please direct all correspondence regarding the deed or settlement to me at Haydenralli3@hotmail.com

• [10] The Applicant was asked to reconcile the statements in his email sent at 6.38am on 18 September 2024 with his evidence that he felt pressured during the 17 September 2025 conference. The Applicant acknowledged that he indicated in his email that he had 'accepted the offer in good faith' and it was 'not a concession under pressure'. The Applicant referred again to his state of mental health at the time and stated that he couldn't remember the conference.

• [11] At 10.27am on 18 September 2025, Mr Wade responded to the Applicant by email[3] and attached the Deed of Release[4] and a Form F50, noting in the email that the Deed was based upon the terms provided by the Fair Work Commission.

• [12] The Applicant was invited during cross-examination to identify any differences between the Deed prepared and sent to him by Mr Wade on 18 September 2025 compared to the summary of agreed matters set out in the Conciliators summary provided on 17 September 2025. He was unable to identify any additions, deletions or any other substantive differences.

• [13] The Applicant responded at 1.08pm on 18 September 2025 in the following terms;

I currently have no access to a witnessing party, so before signing any documentation, I require time to fully understand the weight and implications of the contract.

I am no longer represented by a "shark lawyer" or a small firm with flashy branding; and there's good reason for that. Their own contract, typically used to unethically extract more money from their own clients than from the respondent, has now been used against them. The split-payment mechanics, contractual vagueness, and semantic twisting reveal serious flaws in their process. They were so accustomed to exploiting vulnerable clients that they exposed their own vulnerabilities. I recall Ben telling me I should have read the contract when I questioned the split-payment structure. I assure you I did. I'm

Let me now open up communication clearly and directly.

I never claimed Tracey was aware prior to the 14th. That was a gross oversight introduced by ADS, which I neither ethically align with nor had knowledge of until preparing for a potential hearing and counterclaims.

I offer Tracey a sincere apology in that regard. I had mentioned the issue to Harry in a 2IC context, and from there, things became significantly more complex.

Everything else stated in the F3 can be contradicted with documented truth and evidence. I am happy to reference this at any point; including the fact that Tracey was conducting her own investigation well before Black Rhino received the sexual assault letter.

I was always prepared for a hearing. The strength and brevity of the proof I've obtained far outweigh the quick verbal offer I was poorly encouraged to accept. I was misrepresented but, as mentioned, I read between the lines quickly and thoroughly."[5]

• [14] At 1.17pm on 18 September 2025, Mr Wade replied to the Applicant as follows;

You certainly have time to review the document and have someone witness it when you sign it.

The deed I sent earlier reflects the agreement which was reach yesterday, as advised in the communication from the conciliator who facilitated the meeting yesterday.

Black Rhino will not be able to process any of the agreed matters until they receive the signed and witnessed deed from you.

• [15] In response to Mr Wade's, the Applicant then sent an email at 1.44pm on 18 September 2025, relevantly stating the following;

Thank you for your message. I acknowledge the conciliator's summary, but I must clarify that I am finalizing independently and have withdrawn representation from Australian Dismissal Services as it was poor and ethically unsound

I have not signed any deed, and I do not consider the matter finalized until the terms are reviewed and reflect my direct instructions.

Specifically, I have raised concerns regarding the payment structure, classification of the settlement as "lost income," and the implications of split-payment mechanics introduced by ADS. These issues were not fully addressed during conciliation and require clarification before I can proceed.

I remain open to a fair and transparent resolution. However, I will not sign any deed that exposes me to tax liability or vague fee arrangements.

I will review the document thoroughly and respond once I am satisfied that the terms reflect my position.

Like stated the reality of a hearing doesn't phase me, would be happy to transcribe the video in a courtroom.

• [16] Mr Wade then sent a further email to the Applicant at 1.53pm on 18 September 2025 in the following terms;

The deed sent to you this morning does not factor any split and the money will be paid directly to you less the applicable tax, as is required by Australian law. There is no communication with the company that represented you as you stated clearly that they were no longer to be involved.

The deed sent this morning is the agreement between you and Black Rhino only, as agreed yesterday.

• [17] The Applicant then responded to Mr Wade's email at 2.33pm on 18 September 2025 in the following terms;

Howdy, I will need the appropriate time. I am catching a few red flags in this deed already at no point did any parties agree to a stern classification in regards to my job position! So, if I sign that as is it, I will null further claims even if there are clauses encouraging the fact that it will not to some extent

You guys said it officially chef as documented and provided to you.

I need a break and time to properly review the contract and raise concerns.

• [18] The Applicant subsequently declined to sign the Settlement Agreement.

• [19] Turning now to whether the parties reached a binding settlement. In Masters v Cameron,[10] the High Court summarised three of the circumstances in which a binding settlement is reached:

"Where parties who have been in negotiation reach agreement upon terms of a contractual nature and also agree that the matter of their negotiation shall be dealt with by a formal contract, the case may belong to any of three cases. It may be one in which 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 but not different in effect. Or, secondly, it may be a case in which the parties have completely agreed upon all the terms of their bargain and intend no departure from or addition to that which their agreed terms express or imply, but nevertheless have made performance of one or more of the terms conditional upon the execution of a formal document. Or, thirdly, the case may be one in which the intention of the parties is not to make a concluded bargain at all, unless and until they execute a formal contract.

In each of the first two cases there is a binding contract: in the first case a contract binding the parties at once to perform the agreed terms whether the contemplated formal document comes into existence or not, and to join (if they have so agreed) in settling and executing the formal document; and in the second case a contract binding the parties to join in bringing the formal contract into existence and then to carry it into execution."

• [20] I am satisfied that the parties 'reached finality in arranging all the terms of their bargain'. As stated by the Applicant in an email to Mr Wade at 6.38am on 18 September 2025, he 'accepted the offer in good faith'. Further, his 'acceptance of the offer was a considered decision based on strategic priorities not a concession under pressure...' Those clear statements of unequivocal acceptance cannot be easily reconciled with his claims in these proceedings that he felt pressured and had no capacity or understanding of what was occurring at the time of the conciliation conference. The medical evidence takes the Applicant's case no further as all that he has provided is a limited extract from a medical report, the date and provenance of which is unclear. I also note that the Applicant was sufficiently capable on 18 September 2025 to engage in various and detailed correspondence with Mr Wade in relation to the Settlement Agreement. At no stage before, during or immediately after their exchange did the Applicant raise any concerns in relation to his mental health.

• [21] I am satisfied on the evidence of the Applicant's acceptance of the terms of the agreement reached at the conference held on 17 September 2025. That the Applicant has subsequently declined to sign the Settlement Agreement prepared by Mr Wade, which I am satisfied accurately reflets the agreement reached, does not alter the fact that a binding settlement was reached on 17 September 2025. The settlement reached was of the first type referred to in Masters and Cameron. In Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman[11], Besanko J held that the existence of a binding settlement or "accord and satisfaction" extinguishes the existing cause of action and replaces it with a new cause of action based on the agreement.

• [22] Section 587(1) of the Act provides as follows;

(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

(b) The application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) The application has no reasonable prospect of success."

• [23] As I have found above, the parties reached agreement at the 17 September 2025 conference, and I am satisfied the agreement was of the first type referred to in Masters and Cameron. In these circumstances and in the absence of any material from either party that persuades me otherwise I have determined to exercise my discretion pursuant to ss 587(1)(c) of the Act to dismiss the application on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of success. In doing so I have acted on my own initiative as I am permitted to under s 587(3) of the Act.

For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the application has no reasonable prospects of success, as a binding settlement was reached by the parties in conciliation of the application. In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision

[1] Exhibit R8, Email from Fair Work Commission ,dated 17 September 2025, titled 'Fair Work Commission Case U2025/12702 - Mr Hayden Ralli v Black Rhino (Shamrock) Pty Ltd CRM:00000331513 '

[2] Exhibit R9, Email from Applicant to Peter Wade, dated 18 September 2025, titled 'Re: Fair Work Commission Case U2025/12702 - Mr Hayden Ralli v Black Rhino (Shamrock) Pty Ltd CRM:00000331513'

[3] Exhibit R10, Email from Peter Wade to Applicant, dated 18 September 2025, titled 'Deed'

[5] Exhibit R13, Email exchange between Applicant and Peter Wade on 18 September 2025

[7] Exhibit R12, Email from Applicant to Peter Wade, dated 18 September 2025, titled 'Re:U2025/12702'

[8] Ibid, Email from Peter Wade to Applicant, dated 18 September 2025, titled 'Re:U2025/12702'

[9] Ibid, Email from Applicant to Peter Wade at 2.33pm on 18 Sept 2025, titled 'Re:U2025/12702'

[10] Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353, 360.

[11] [2011] FCA 975.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer