s.365 - General protections

• [1] This matter involves an application brought by Rebecca Burgess under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009.[1] Country Bumpkins NSW Pty Ltd has raised a jurisdictional objection to the application. It contends that Ms Burgess was not dismissed. The hearing of the jurisdictional objection is scheduled to take place on 11 August 2025.
• [2] On 10 July 2025, I made directions in anticipation of the hearing. They included that any party seeking permission to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent at the hearing must file an outline of submissions in support of permission being granted by 18 July 2025; and that if the other party opposed such permission being granted, they were to file an outline of submissions setting out the basis of their opposition by 4.00pm on 25 July 2025.
• [3] Country Bumpkins has applied for permission to be represented at the hearing by DJMIR Advisory Services Pty Ltd. On 18 July 2025, it filed submissions in support of that application.
• [4] On 25 July 2025, Rebecca Burgess filed submissions opposing that permission being granted. Ms Burgess is self-represented.
• [5] As a general proposition, a person may be represented in a matter before the Commission by a lawyer or paid agent only with the Commission's permission: section 596(1). Section 596(2) sets out the circumstances in which that permission may be granted, as follows:

(2) The FWC may grant permission for a person to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent in a matter before the FWC only if:

(a) it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter; or

(b) it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented because the person is unable to represent himself, herself or itself effectively; or

(c) it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented taking into account fairness between the person and other persons in the same matter.

• [6] Country Bumpkins sought permission under section 596(2)(a). Its substantive submissions were:

"2. The Respondent asserts the matter before the Commission is significantly complex as it involves a jurisdictional objection. The matter would therefore be dealt with more

efficiently with the assistance of DJMIR due to this complexity.

3. The Respondent further states the efficiency of the matter will be assisted by DJMIR's

involvement as DJMIR has been engaged from the commencement of this matter and is

• [7] The only test that the Commission must apply in respect of section 596(2)(a) is whether granting permission would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. In applying that test I must take into account the complexity of the matter. But I do not need to find that the matter is complex. A matter does not necessarily have to be complex to warrant a grant of permission.[2]

• [8] That said, Country Bumpkins has not demonstrated any particular complexity in the matter. The fact that a matter involves a jurisdictional objection does not of itself give rise to "significant" complexity. However, I have had regard to the complexity of the matter as reflected in the material that the parties have filed in anticipation of the hearing.

• [9] Further, the fact that DJMIR is "privy to all the relevant details of the matter" does not necessarily mean that its involvement will enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. The material that Country Bumpkins has filed includes a statement by Melissa Walsh, the Director of the company. As Ms Burgess submitted, and as Ms Walsh's statement suggests, Ms Walsh could be expected to "know the events first-hand". In any event, the relevant DJMIR representative would not be appearing as a witness in the matter.

• [10] Overall, I am not persuaded that Country Bumpkins has made out a case for the grant of permission under section 596(2)(a).

• [11] Consequently, I have determined to refuse permission for Country Bumpkins to be legally represented at the hearing on 11 August 2025.

[1] In this decision, all legislative references are to provisions of that Act

[2] Singh v Metro Trains Melbourne [2015] FWCFB 3502 at [16(2)]; Toby Artery v G Case & H Case T/A Gavin Case Marine Services [2021] FWC 4130 at [19], see also [20]-[21]

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer