• [13] At 3:36pm AEDT that day (3 November 2025), the Applicant emailed Chambers in response, without copying in the Respondent (Applicant's 3 November Email):

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 31 October and 3 November 2025.

Your suggestion that I have not communicated with the Commission, or that I have had "the whole weekend" to respond, is wholly inappropriate, inaccurate and unfair.

I have not had capacity to engage with Chambers during this period due to ongoing personal safety-related circumstances and preparation for a related Supreme Court matter listed for hearing on Wednesday, 5 November 2025.

My focus over the past couple of weeks has necessarily been on safety planning, coordination with Police, legal representatives, and engagement with relevant agencies.

For transparency, both the Victims of Crime Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner have been made aware of your correspondence, my circumstances and my limited capacity to participate as proactively as I would have liked in this matter.

These are not matters of avoidance but arise directly from ongoing safety risks.

I am in the process of gathering supporting documentation to verify these circumstances as per your request.

For procedural fairness, I request that the Commission adjourn any decision or dismissal until I have had a reasonable opportunity to submit this evidence and make further submissions.

It would not be consistent with procedural fairness or the Commission's statutory obligations to make an adverse determination without allowing adequate time to respond in light of verifiable safety issues.

I also remind the Commission of its obligations to perform its functions fairly, justly, and according to equity and good conscience, and to adopt trauma-informed practice.

For privacy and safety reasons, I will not be copying the Respondent or their representatives in correspondence that contains, refers to, or attaches information concerning my personal safety, health, or circumstances.

Such information is provided to the Commission in confidence and for the limited purpose of verifying my capacity to comply with Directions.

I therefore request that any supporting material I provide be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the Respondent without my express written consent, pursuant to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Commission's confidentiality obligations.

I trust the Commission will take these matters into account before proceeding further.

I also request to be provided with the contact details of your Executive Level 1 and Director so

• [14] The Applicant sent my Chambers a further email at 3:47pm AEDT on 3 November 2025, without copying in the Respondent, attaching a letter from the Domestic Violence Crisis Service (DVCS) of even date. This letter was signed off by a Claudia [last name unknown]. It outlined that the Applicant had been engaged with DVCS since March 2021, and that DVCS were aware that the Applicant's life had been disrupted in the past month due to domestic violence.

• [15] At 4:40pm AEDT on Monday, 3 November 2025, my Chambers sent the Applicant the following further email (Chambers' Second 3 November Email):

I refer to your email below, and respond on behalf of the Deputy President.

Please note, all correspondence from Chambers has been approved by and sent on behalf of Deputy President Boyce. It follows that there is no utility in you speaking to an "Executive Level 1 and Director". This matter and all communications had in relation to same are under the carriage of the Deputy President. Neither is it clear as to why "the Victims of Crime Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner have been made aware" of these proceedings before the Fair Work Commission.

You have been sent emails in relation to your non-compliance with Directions, and your failure to make any communication with Chambers about your non-compliance. Most recently, you were directed to provide (by no later than 12pm on Monday, 3 November 2025) evidence of your asserted incapacity to communicate with Chambers, including your asserted absence of access to telephone and internet, between 2 October 2025 (the date the Directions were first issued in this matter) and 31 October 2025, being specific verifiable evidence as to these dates (i.e. general information about your circumstances will not be acceptable in relation to a period of nearly 30 days (or more than 4 weeks)). You did not provide such information, nor did you make any communication with the Commission prior to 12pm today. Hence, Chambers needed to take the time to chase you up [again] after this deadline had passed. Chasing you up in this regard is not inconsistent with procedural fairness or the Commission's statutory obligations. Indeed, it is a necessary part of case management.

Originally you emailed stating that a court hearing was to occur today (Monday). Now you have said the court hearing will occur this Wednesday. This is new or changed information that had not previously been advised to Chambers.

You have made a request to amend the hearing timetable and adjourn the hearing. That said, you have not proposed an alternative timetable, or an alternative hearing date. These proceedings cannot remain in abeyance. They must be heard and resolved. It is not inconsistent with procedural fairness or the Commission's statutory obligations to require such information from you, or to chase you up in relation to same. Procedural fairness applies to both parties to these proceedings, and it is appropriate for the Respondent to be aware of what is going on given it is also subject to the Directions issued, and needs to make its own plans as to the hearing date.

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) does not apply to proceedings before the Commission. That said, if you say you require documentation to be kept confidential, you will need to make that request at the time that you send such documentation through to Chambers.

You have also provided a "support letter" from "Claudia" (no last name) from the Domestic Violence Crisis Centre dated 3 November 2025. This support letter provides general information about your circumstances that is of no real assistance in setting up an alternative timetable or an alternative hearing date. Chambers has not attached this letter, noting that the Respondent has been copied into this email. Moving forward, you will need to copy the Respondent into all emails to Chambers unless you are forwarding a document that you assert (for whatever reason) should not be disclosed to the Respondent.

In the circumstances, the Deputy President has now determined to list this matter for a mention/directions video hearing to occur at 1pm this Friday, 7 November 2025. All parties are required to attend this listing. At this listing, the matters in Chambers previous emails to you will be discussed, and a further Directions and hearing date may be set. If you wish to rely upon any documentation in support of your position at this video listing, you should file same with Chambers by no later than 4pm this Thursday, 6 November 2025.

• [16] The Applicant did not file any documentation in support of her position as requested in Chamber's Second 3 November Email.

• [17] The listing details that were sent to the parties, for 1pm AEDT on Friday, 7 November 2025 (7 November Listing), requested parties dial into the listing 10 minutes prior to start time (i.e. 12:50pm AEDT). Chambers did not receive any correspondence or communication from the Applicant as to her inability to attend the 7 November Listing.

• [18] And so it came to pass that at 12:58pm AEDT on Friday, 7 November 2025, with the Applicant not dialling into the 7 November Listing, my Associate attempted to call the Applicant to see if she intended on joining the video listing, and left a voicemail reminding her of the listing, and advising her that the start of the listing would be delayed until 1:10pm AEDT to allow her to join, before commencing in her absence.

• [19] At 1:05pm AEDT, my Associate attempted yet a further (or second) time to call to the Applicant, and left her a further voicemail, advising her that she should join the listing as soon as possible, and advising her that the listing would commence at 1:10pm on record in her absence.

• [20] The Applicant did not join the 7 November Listing, nor did Chambers receive any further communication whatsoever from the Applicant.

• [21] The 7 November Listing proceeded in the Applicant's absence. Following this listing, my Chambers sent the Applicant the following email at 4:51pm AEDT on Friday, 7 November 2025 (Chamber's 7 November Email):

I refer to the various email exchanges between Chambers and yourself on 31 October 2025 and 3 November 2025.

Chambers notes that the ultimate result of the email exchange with you on 3 November 2025 was that this matter was listed for a Mention/Directions today (7/11/25) at 1:00pm AEDT (Listing). You failed to attend this Listing, and further, you failed to communicate with Chambers (at all) in relation to your inability to attend and/or your non-attendance. Given you failed to attend today's Listing, two telephone messages were left for you shortly before and after 1pm today reminding you to dial into the hearing (giving you 10 minutes to do so, whilst everyone in attendance waited for you). At the time of writing this email, you have not responded to these telephone messages, and you have not communicated at all with Chambers. This is completely unacceptable and unsatisfactory.

The Listing went ahead today in your absence, with the Respondent's instructor and legal representative in attendance. At this Listing, the Deputy President advised that he would write to you in regard to the ongoing conduct of these proceedings, your repeated non-compliance with Directions, and your failure to adequately communicate with Chambers. This is that correspondence.

In summary, the Respondent has complied with the Directions issued on 2 October 2025 and filed its materials on 16 October 2025. You have failed to comply with the Directions, and have repeatedly failed to comply with the other reasonable requests made of you (i.e. as set out in Chambers emails to you on 3 November 2025). This situation of non-compliance and non-communication by you cannot (and will not) be permitted to continue any further. At the most basic level, including as a matter of common courtesy, you need to communicate with Chambers in a timely fashion. Your failure to do so results in time wasting and costs being incurred.

In the circumstances, it is now appropriate to provide you with one last and final direction (i.e. opportunity) to file your evidence, submissions, and any other materials you seek to rely upon. You have until 12pm AEDT next Monday, 10 November 2025 (Deadline), to do so. It is noted that this provides you with two whole days over the weekend, and half of Monday, to comply. More relevantly, you have already had since 16 October 2025 to comply. If you fail to comply by this Deadline, the matter will be immediately dismissed without further notice to you. If you do comply with the Deadline, the hearing will proceed as currently listed for Friday, 14 November 2025.

• [22] At 12pm AEDT on Monday, 10 November 2025, my Chambers attempted (yet again) to call the Applicant, and left her a voicemail reminding her of Chambers' 7 November Email. No response was received from the Applicant.

• [23] At 11:34am AEDT on Tuesday, 11 November 2025, my Chambers emailed the parties as follows (Dismissal Email):

Chambers notes that the Applicant is non-compliant with the Directions given in this matter, and most recently, the email below.

Under the circumstances, the hearing listed for 10am AEDT this Friday, 14 November 2025 is vacated.

A Decision and Order dismissing this matter will be issued to the parties in due course.

• [24] As at the time of this decision (being Monday, 17 November 2025), my Chambers has received no further correspondence or communication whatsoever from the Applicant.

• [25] Section 587(3)(a) of the Act provides that the Commission may dismiss an application before it on its own initiative.

• [26] I observe that one day after the Applicant filed her Application in these proceedings, she sought that it be dealt with urgently and at the earliest possible opportunity.[2] She also advised that she would be filing further or additional materials in support of her case by 3 October 2025.[3] This never happened. It remains perplexing (and unexplained) that the Applicant was at one point very keen to have her matter dealt with expeditiously, but then wasn't.

(a) made no attempt to comply with Direction [3], and/or the Show Cause Email, and/or Chambers' 31 October Email, and/or Chambers' First 3 November email, and/or Chambers' Second 3 November Email, and/or Chambers' 7 November Email;

(b) not returned the voicemails left by my Associate;

(d) failed to notify my Chambers of her non-attendance at the 7 November Listing; and

(e) failed to otherwise make any further contact whatsoever with my Chambers since 3:47pm on 3 November 2025;

• [28] Rather than engaging on the various 'possibilities' as to why the Applicant has conducted herself in the manner she has, my preference is to work on the basis of what is actually before me (in terms of evidence) at the time of publishing this decision. In this regard, as at 17 November 2025, there is no evidence before me that the Applicant has in any way attempted to comply with the requests that have been made of her,[4] or otherwise sought to make contact with the Commission or Chambers since 3:37pm on 3 November 2025. This is unquestionably wholly unacceptable and completely unsatisfactory.

• [29] A statutory tribunal such as the Fair Work Commission is expressly given certain jurisdiction and powers that it must exercise. I consider that the Commission must equally be taken to hold (by implication) whatever powers may be necessary to properly exercise such (express) powers and control its own process (including the dismissal of proceedings for reasons of non-compliance and non-responsiveness).[5] Further, in dismissing an application, I do not consider it necessary to get into some form of labelling or categorisation exercise as to whether an Application is being dismissed for want of prosecution, absent due dispatch, abuse of process, etc, or to engage is some form of detailed multifactorial analysis or balancing exercise around possibilities or unquantifiable probabilities, etc. If an applicant goes incommunicado and thus fails in their personal responsibility to engage with the case that they have themselves initiated, I consider this alone sufficient to remove the applicant's right or entitlement to have their proceedings continued any further. Of course, there will be exceptions, but such exceptions need to be well grounded in direct probative evidence of an actual inability to have communicated with the Commission at the relevant time/s, or as and when required or requested to do so. No such evidence exists in this case as at the time of publishing this decision.

• [30] It is not for me to speculate, or give the benefit of the doubt to the Applicant, as to the plethora of reasons that might exist for the Applicant's non-compliance and deleterious conduct. That will only inevitably result in more pointless time wasting.

• [31] An Order dismissing the Application under s.587(3)(a) of the Act, for the reasons set out in this decision, will be published contemporaneously with this decision.

[1] The relevant contractual term reads: "Unless it is terminated sooner, your employment will terminate by operation of law at the close of business on the last day of the specified term / on completion of the specified task" (being 31 July 2025)."

[2] Form F8, and email from the Applicant to FWC Client Services, 21 August 2025 (9:49am)

[3] Email from the Applicant to FWC Client Services, 30 September 2025 (1:25pm).

[4] Note also, or compare, for example, the evidence requirements under s.107 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[5] Grassby v The Queen [1989] HCA 45; (1989) 168 CLR 1, at 16-17, per Dawson J.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer