The facts indicate this was no innocent mistake. Indeed, the Commission has previously refused amendments in analogous circumstances. For example, in Lili Sinden v HDR Inc t/a HDR [2018] FWC 5643, Deputy President Kovacic declined to permit a s.586 name correction where the applicant had knowingly sued the wrong entity for strategic reasons. In that case, the applicant (an experienced HR manager) named a foreign parent company instead of her actual employer, purportedly to gain a tactical advantage; the Commission found it "implausible" that such an error was accidental and refused leave to amend to the correct company. Similarly here, the misnaming of the Respondent is fundamental, not a mere slip. It would be contrary to principle to treat this as a misnomer - in truth it is a jurisdictional error that cannot be waived or "corrected" without effectively bringing a new claim against a new party out of time.

• [12] The submissions continued at further great length.

• [13] Later that afternoon, my chambers sent the following correspondence to the parties, referring to the correspondence sent to the parties by the Commission on 14 April 2025, asking the Respondent to respond to Mr Korexenos' request to amend the name of the Respondent:

The Commissioner refers the parties to the attached correspondence from the Commission's Unfair Dismissals Case Management team, in which the Respondent was asked to provide a response to the Applicant's request to amend the name of the Respondent. It does not appear the Respondent responded to this request in the material subsequently filed.

The issue will be discussed at the conference on 20 June 2025, however the Commissioner's preliminary view is that notwithstanding the Respondent's objection, she will likely make a name change correction order following the 20 June 2025 conference."

• [14] In response to the correspondence from my chambers, Mr Connory forwarded the Form F3 provided to the Commission on 15 April 2025. Mr Connory noted, "If you see section 2.1 and 2.4 I clearly stated that James was never a employee at Aphore and that in section 2.5 this case was vexatious in nature and should be dismissed."

• [15] At the conference on 20 June 2025, I informed the parties that having considered the submissions of Mr Connory, I would shortly make an Order correcting the name of the Respondent and that was a decision made by me. Following the Order being made, Mr Connory requested the reasons for the decision.

• [16] Where Mr Connory relied upon the first instance decision in Lili Sinden v HDR Inc. [2018] FWC 5643, this decision was overturned on appeal in Lili Sinden v HDR Inc.; HDR Pty Limited [2018] FWCFB 6934. The Full Bench stated the following:

" [11] Section 586(a) of the FW Act provides that the Commission may "allow a correction or amendment of any application, or other document relating to a matter before the FWC, on any terms that it considers appropriate". The discretionary power conferred by s 586(a) is self-evidently broad, and encompasses but is not expressed as confined to the correction of mistakes. In respect of the amendment power in a previous iteration of the federal legislative scheme for industrial relations, the High Court treated it as having a wide field of operation so as to give effect to the statutory intention that proceedings should be directed to the merits and that technicalities and legal forms should not be regarded. The same approach is applicable under the FW Act having regard to the requirements in s 577(b) for the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and in s 578(b) for the Commission in performing functions and exercising powers in relation to a matter to take into account equity, good conscience and the merits of the matter. In the context of the Commission's unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the s 586(a) power has been used to correct the identification of a respondent employer to the extent of substituting one corporate entity for another." [footnotes omitted]

• [17] I had regard to the extraordinarily lengthy submissions of Mr Connory on behalf of both Aphore Pty Ltd and Security in Depth Pty Ltd, requesting the Commission dismiss Mr Korexenos' claim against Aphore Pty Ltd and render him outside of the 21-day time limit in which to bring his claim against Security in Depth Pty Ltd.

• [18] The Commission must take into account equity, good conscience and the merits of the matter, in addition to performing its functions in a manner that is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities.[1]

• [19] Mr Korexenos alerted the Commission to the correct name of his former employer one week after bringing his application and before Mr Connory even raised an objection. By requesting the name of the respondent be altered, Mr Korexenos was essentially making an application to the Commission at that time. The matter was then not allocated to a member of the Commission until 10 June 2025 to deal with the jurisdictional and substantive issues. I have promptly and efficiently dealt with the issue by making the name change order after taking into account the detailed and repetitive submission of Mr Connory on behalf of both entities.

• [20] I was satisfied that in allowing the correction to be made under s.586(a) of the Act a new application was not created or established, and Mr Korexenos was not prejudiced by having to make a fresh application which would be significantly beyond the 21-day time limit, against his true employer when regard is had to the following:

(a) Mr Korexenos alerted the Commission so promptly to the issue and requested it be amended;

(b) Aphore Pty Ltd and Security in Depth Pty Ltd are associated entities, both run by Mr Connory; and

(c) Having reviewed the eight-page termination letter from Security in Depth Pty Ltd to Mr Korexenos, there is no dispute that Mr Korexenos was dismissed by Security in Depth Pty Ltd.

• [21] I was further satisfied that there is no prejudice to Security in Depth Pty Ltd by making the name change order. I have made the name change order to ensure that the matter before the Commission can be dealt with in accordance with all of the requirements in s.577 of the Act, including that the Commission must perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair and just.

[1] Fair Work Act 2009 s.577(b).

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer