The Deputy President has formed a preliminary view that the application has no reasonable prospect of success because a binding settlement was reached between the parties. Should the Applicant object to the proposed dismissal of her application, she is required to file submissions and any other relevant material setting out the basis for her objection on or by 5.00pm on Monday 2 February 2026. Should either party seek to be further heard on this matter, they are required to advise Chambers. Otherwise, the matter will be dealt with on the papers."

[5] The Applicant did not make any submissions as invited in the correspondence of 29 January 2026.

• [6] Turning now to whether the application should be dismissed. In Masters v Cameron,[1] 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."

• [7] I am satisfied that the parties 'reached finality in arranging all the terms of their bargain'. As reflected in the terms of settlement signed by both parties, a binding agreement was reached at the conference on 10 November 2025. The delay in the Respondent executing the terms of settlement does not alter the fact that a binding settlement was reached on 10 November 2025. The settlement reached was of the second type referred to in Masters and Cameron. In Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman[2], 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.

[8] A key term in of the agreement reached between the parties, that of the payment of compensation, was contingent upon execution of the terms of settlement. Payment was then required to be made within 14 days of execution. While the Applicant may feel aggrieved at the Respondent's delay in signing the terms of settlement, there is no evidence or material before me to indicate that immediate execution of the terms of settlement was required or that payment was required to be made within 14 days of the agreement having been reached in the conciliation conference. That may have been the Applicant's expectation, but it was not a term of the agreement reached. If the Applicant believes the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of settlement, she is of course entitled to pursue that in a court of competent jurisdiction. As a binding settlement was reached, the Applicant's cause of action through her unfair dismissal application is no longer available.

[9] 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."

[10] As I have found above, the parties reached agreement at the 10 November 2025 conference, and I am satisfied the agreement was of the second type referred in Masters and Cameron. In these circumstances 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] Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353, 360.

[2] [2011] FCA 975.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer