Fair Work Commission|2025-11-14

Taylah Chislett v iProperty Express Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3420 (14 November 2025)

s.394 - Unfair dismissal

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - termination not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable - application dismissed.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Ms Taylah Chislett (the Applicant) for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 Cth (the Act). The Applicant was employed by iProperty Express Pty Ltd (the Respondent) and alleges she was dismissed on 12 May 2025. The unfair dismissal application was lodged by the Applicant on 30 May 2025.

[2] The matter was listed for determinative conference/hearing before me on 12 November 2025 to deal with the merits of the application. Both parties filed material in advance of the determinative conference/hearing in accordance with directions issued. After taking into account the views of the parties I determined to conduct a hearing. The Applicant appeared and gave evidence along with her husband Mr Howie Simpson. Mr Michael Starkey of Baker McKenzie, who was granted permission to appear on behalf of the Respondent pursuant to s 596 of the Act, called Mr Junhai Kan (Sole Director of the Respondent) to give evidence for the Respondent.

[3] The Respondent provides property management software to clients across Australia in the real estate and property industry. The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10 June 2024 in the full-time role of Software Training Assistant & Support Officer with her terms and conditions of employment governed by an employment agreement dated 29 May 2024[1] (the Employment Agreement). She was engaged on a base salary of $80,000 on top which she received superannuation and reported to Ms Sarah Gaspero, Head of Customer Success. According to Mr Kan, the Applicant in her role was responsible for a range of duties including the following;

(a) delivering training and account setup services for new clients both in Victoria and in other States;

(b) providing ongoing support for clients, including providing solutions to client problems and handling client complaints;

(d) developing and updating client documentation, training and promotional material.[2]

[4] Mr Kan further states that the Applicant had access to and regularly used confidential information including client lists, client names and contact details, other personal information about the Respondents clients and landlords who engage with the Respondent's clients; technical information related to the Respondent's products, sales and marketing strategies, business growth and product development plans.

[5] The Employment Agreement dealt with the obligations of the Applicant in relation to engaging in secondary employment or other activities in or in connection with the industry in which the Respondent was concerned. Clause 2 relevantly stated as follows;

2.7 The Employee undertakes that subject to clause 2.9, the Employee will not at any time during the period of Employment without the consent in writing of the Managing Director which consent may not be unreasonably withheld:

(a) be engaged, employed, concerned or interested directly or indirectly (otherwise than as a share or debenture or note holder in a public company) in any proposal, project, assignment or development which is in or in connection with the industry in which the Company is concerned;

(b) be engaged directly, or interested directly or indirectly in any other employment, business or occupation.

2.9 Without limiting the generality of clause 2.7 above, the Employee will not during the Employment hold any position for monetary or other reward which may in any way be seen to conflict with the Employee's performance of the Duties.

2.11 The Employee agrees to use the Employee's best endeavours to promote the business interests of the Company and the Group and to expand their respective businesses and not engage in any activities which may adversely affect the reputation or goodwill of the Company, its clients or its customers;

[6] Clause 13 of the Agreement dealt with the Applicant's confidentiality obligations as follows;

"13.1 For the purposes of this clause 13, Employment shall include the period from the Agreement Date. The Employee undertakes that the Employee will not, neither during, nor after the period of Employment, except in the proper course of the Duties or as permitted by the Company, divulge to any person or use any trade secret or any confidential information concerning:

(a) the business, financial arrangements or position of the Company or any company within the Group, or their respective clients; or

(b) any of the dealings, transactions or affairs of the business of the Company or any company within the Group, or their respective clients.

13.2 the Employee undertakes that the Employee will during the period of the Employment use the Employee's best endeavours to prevent the publication, use or disclosure of any trade secret or confidential information referred to in clause 13.1.

13.3 Without limiting the generality of the trade secrets or confidential information described in clause 13.1 above, the undertaking in this clause will also apply to the confidential information which is listed in Schedule 2 to this agreement by the Company (or, provided that prior written notice is provided to the Employee at the time that this Agreement is executed or subsequently listed during the Employment).

13.4 Upon being requested to do so by the Company, the Employee undertakes to enter into such confidentiality agreements with the Company, any company within the Group, or any of their respective clients, as the Company may require."

[7] Schedule 2 of the Employment Agreement which is referred to in clause 13.3 lists a range of material as 'confidential' for the purposes of clause 13. That list includes 'names and addresses of customers, clients of the Company' and 'any other like information including copies, abstracts, reports, notes and summaries of that Confidential Information.'

[8] The Applicant agreed during cross-examination that she was aware of and bound by the above-referred clauses of her Employment Agreement.

[9] The Applicant states that in or around January 2025, she started experiencing concerning conduct and witnessed things in the workplace that made her question whether she wished to continue her employment with the Respondent. This included;

(a) the requirement imposed on her to travel interstate accompanied by a significant increase in her workload, which included a six-day trip to NSW in February 2025 for which she says she did not receive additional remuneration despite working additional hours beyond her ordinary hours of work[3];

(b) concerns about terms in proposed new employment contracts and that staff would not be reimbursed for out-of-pocket travel expenses or overtime if worked[4];

(c) the requirement to undertake two additional work trips and additional hours in April 2025 for which she did not receive payment[5];

(d) a request from Mr Kan for her to upload new webinars to 'GoToWebinar' for testing, upon completion of which task she received an abrupt and what she took to be a passive aggressive reply from Mr Kan for having advised of the task completion in the general office chat[6];

(e) being sent a message around 4.07 pm on 10 April 2025 in the training chat group from Mr Antypas (Senior Growth Manager) requesting contact be made with a New Zealand based client to book in some training, in circumstances where it was after the client's normal business hours in New Zealand at that time[7]; and

(f) receiving a message on 11 April 2025 from Mr Kan sent to her and the rest of training team in which Mr Kan was critical of them for not immediately actioning Mr Antypas 10 April 2025 request. He advised that their lack of immediate action 'was unacceptable': that if staff didn't care, they didn't have a future, and that there would be 'no passengers'.[8]

[10] Mr Kan states his belief that the above-referred matters raised by the Applicant in relation to her employment with the Respondent are irrelevant to the proceedings. He does however state the following in relation to those matters;

(a) as Software Training Assistant & Support officer, the Applicant was expected to travel interstate, this having been made clear to her when she applied for the role and as referenced in in clause 2.4(c), Schedule 1 - Job Description and clause 9 of the Employment Agreement and as made clear in clause 2.10 of the Employment Agreement, her remuneration was calculated on the basis of including work performed outside ordinary hours of work;

(b) Mr Kan did not observe the Applicant working excessive hours;

(c) Mr Kan's message to the Applicant on her broader communication of the completion of uploading the webinars was to avoid unnecessarily distracting other staff via the team chat; and

(d) Mr Kan denies that the message he sent in the team chat on 11 April 2025 was a threat to dismiss the Applicant or Ms Cox.[9]

[11] The Applicant states that as a consequence of the various matters set out above, she determined that she needed to resign. This was communicated to Ms Gaspero in a meeting on 14 April 2025 during which she advised Ms Gaspero that she (the Applicant) was stressed as a result of Mr Kan's message, did not appreciate working for someone who saw no value in her and was resigning her employment. The Applicant states it was her intention to work out the twelve weeks' notice she gave[10].

[12] Ms Gaspero advised Mr Kan on or around 14 April 2025 that the Applicant had notified her intention to resign her employment, confirmation of which was provided by the Applicant in a letter dated 14 April 2025[11] (the Resignation Letter). The Resignation Letter advised that the Applicant's last day of employment would be 4 July 2025.

[13] Mr Kan was informed by the Respondent's Chief Growth Officer, Ms Kelly Kovacev on or around 29 April 2025, that the Applicant had a profile on a website maintained by a company called 'Global Property' (the Global Property Profile). The profile listed the Applicant's name, mobile number, email address, a profile picture and identified her position with Global Property as Director. Mr Kan viewed the Global Property Profile around that time and subsequently took a screenshot of the Applicant's Global Property Profile[12] on or around 17 June 2025. Mr Kan further states that the Applicant's husband Mr Simpson remains listed as a director on the Global Property website[13] and at least by 15 August 2025, the Applicant's profile had been removed from the Global Property site[14].

[14] Mr Kan states that he was particularly concerned about the Applicant's Global Property Profile because;

(a) Global Property is a real estate agency and is in direct competition with the Respondent's clients, namely other real estate agencies.

(b) Global Property would be interested in confidential information held by the Respondent to the extent that information related to clients who were Global Property's competitors.

(c) The Applicant's role with the Respondent was a post-sales, client facing role. Clients of the Respondent who interacted with the Applicant during her employment would recognise the Applicant's profile on Global Property's website.

(d) Taking into account the above, clients of the Respondent would be extremely concerned to know that an employee of the Respondent was also employed or engaged by one of their competitors.[15]

[15] At 6.26pm on 29 April 2025, Mr Kan sent the Applicant an email in the following terms;

We need to speak with you urgently regarding a matter that has come to our attention.

It has been brought to our attention that you are listed as a Director on the Global Property website:

This appears to be in breach of your employment agreement, which states that during your period of employment, you must not - without written consent - be engaged or involved, directly or indirectly, in any other employment or business.

Given the seriousness of this, your access to company systems has been suspended while we seek to understand the situation.

Please do not return to work until we've had the opportunity to speak. We're requesting a Zoom meeting with you this Thursday to give you a fair chance to explain. Let us know what time you're available and we'll confirm the details.

[16] A meeting was held on 1 May 2025, at which Mr Kan, Mr John Georgopoulous (Advisor to the Respondent's Board) and the Applicant attended. Mr Kan states that during the meeting the Applicant variously responded that her husband created the profile without her knowledge or permission, could not recall when she became aware of the profile, denied any involvement in the creation of the profile, stated that her husband managed it, she did not have a contract with Global Property and hadn't completed any work for them. The Applicant was advised by Mr Georgopoulos at the end of the meeting that if she had any further information she wished to provide, she could do so by email to Mr Kan.[17]. The Applicant's evidence on the meeting was largely consistent with that of Mr Kan, although the Applicant states she also stated during the meeting that she had not received any remuneration from Global Property and offered to arrange for the removal of her Global Property Profile[18].

[17] The Applicant further states that on or about 10.56am on 5 May 2025, she was advised by a former colleague Ms Cherie Mattinson, that she (the Applicant) had been removed from the Respondent's training chat group[19]. Mr Kan agreed that this occurred but added he believed the Respondent was entitled to suspend the Applicant and her systems access while it investigated her conduct[20].

[18] On 5 May 2025, the Applicant sent an email to Mr Kan which stated as follows;

Following on from our meeting on Thursday, I confirm the following:

My profile on Global Property's website was listed prior to me handing in my resignation at the behest of my husband.

I have not entered into a contract with Global Property, completed any work on behalf of Global Property, nor received any monetary compensation or reward from Global Property to date. A profile has been created on Global Property's website at the request of my husband. Therefore, I do not believe I have breached my obligations owed to iProperty.

I am prepared, willing, and able to fulfil my notice period. However, in light of the fact that my access to iProperty's systems has now been revoked and I have been removed from iProperty's work chat, it appears that iProperty has already predetermined that it does not wish for me to resume my duties in the workplace. In these circumstances it appears there may be advantages to a prompt and harmonious cessation of my employment.

To this end, I am willing to accept payment in lieu of the notice period specified in my employment contract, which is twelve weeks, including any travel expenses owed in order to formally conclude my employment. Please let me know if iProperty wishes to proceed on this basis or confirm the arrangements that are being made to allow me to return to the workplace?

Should any unlawful action be taken regarding my employment following the receipt of this email, I reserve the right to use this correspondence in any future legal proceedings.

[19] Mr Kan states that at around the time he became aware of the Applicant's Global Property Profile, the Respondent took additional steps to find out information about the Applicant's conduct by conducting a search of the internet. That search revealed a profile of the Applicant on Realestate.com (the Realestate Profile) which identified that the Applicant had sold the following three properties;

(i) the property at 275 Dandelion Drive, Rowville, Victoria, 3178, sold on 23 April 2025;

(ii) the property at 21 Lucerne Road, Ferntree Gully, Victoria, 3156, sold on 21 April 2025; and

(iii) the property at 17 Patterson Street, Bayswater, Victoria, 3153, sold on 13 April 2025.[22]

[20] The Realestate Profile also identified that the Applicant had listed two additional properties under her name on behalf of Global Properties[23]. The Realestate Profile of the Applicant was removed sometime prior to 13 August 2025 according to Mr Kan[24].

[21] In her witness statement prepared for these proceedings, the Applicant rejected the allegation that that she sold three properties for Global Property while employed by the Respondent. She states that her husband sold these properties and listed the Applicant as a secondary agent for the purpose of increasing their reputations and visibility. She also refers to the two properties listed for sale under her name and states that she is again listed as the secondary agent to her husband for the same purpose, that of increasing their reputation and visibility[25].

[22] The Applicant was cross examined in relation to the matters raised in the 29 April 2025 correspondence and in the 1 May 2025 meeting. She agreed that at the time of that meeting she was aware of the Global Property Profile which had been established in February 2025, she had not sought consent from the Respondent to engage in secondary employment, she had not disclosed creation of the profile to the Respondent or taken steps to remove it prior to 1 May 2025 meeting. She also agreed that the Global Property Profile was misleading and potentially fraudulent as it described the Applicant as a 'Director' of Global Property and actively involved in the sale of properties: when she claimed in these proceedings to have no such role.

[23] The Applicant also accepted that despite claiming on the 1 May 2025 to have not entered into a contract with Global Property or received any income or reward, she had in fact entered into an employment contract orally and had been employed by Global Property on a casual basis. This was confirmed by Mr Billy Schroeder of Global Property in correspondence tendered by the Applicant in these proceedings, where he relevantly stated;

Global Property engaged Ms Chislett to be employed on a casual basis, during this time she acted as an open host, and she wasn't paid any commissions in relation to the alleged property sales referred to in the proceedings.

[24] The Applicant was also questioned on the actual work she did for Global Property. While failing to disclose the nature of the role when responding to the Respondent during the disciplinary process, the Applicant conceded during cross-examination that she drove her husband to open houses as he had lost his driver's license and also acted as an open house 'host', as confirmed by Mr Schroeder in the above-referred correspondence. She denied that her responses during the disciplinary process on in her witness statement were untruthful.

[25] Mr Kan also states that he became aware from advice from Ms Kovacev that the Applicant had update her profile picture on the Respondent's website[27] with the same picture used in the Global Property Profile, albeit with a different background. According to Mr Kan, it was established that the Applicant updated her profile on the Respondent's website on 18 February 2025 which meant the Applicant had access to and use of the same picture used on the Global Property Profile[28].

[26] On 9 May 2025, Mr Kan sent a letter to the Applicant (the Show Cause Letter) which relevantly stated the following;

I refer to the meeting on 1 May 2025 between you, me, and John Georgopoulos, in relation to our employment with iProperty Express Pty Ltd (iProperty).

As you know, we have recently discussed with you our belief that during your employment with iProperty you have been, and may still be, engaged or involved, either directly or indirectly, with other employment or business with Global Property. We formed this belief on the basis of the following:

you are currently listed as a Director on Global Property's website;

it appears that your profile photo used on Global Property's website, which is in a form substantially similar to all of the other profile photos of the website, was last modified on the website on 24 February 2025; and

we have identified on realestate.com.au that you sold three properties in April 2025, which would indicate a listing date of at least February or early March. You also have two more properties currently listed.

You have been given an opportunity to respond to this allegation. While the Company has taken your response into account, the Company does not accept your explanation.

iProperty believes that your conduct is in serious breach of your employment contract dated 29 May 2024, including clause 2.7. Your conduct has also seriously undermined the relationship of trust between you and iProperty.

Based on the above, iProperty is considering terminating your employment summarily.

In order to provide you a final, full, and fair opportunity to respond to the matters set out in this letter, we request that you attend a meeting with me and John Georgopoulos at 12pm on Monday, 12 May 2025.

At that meeting, we will ask you to show cause why your employment with iProperty should not be terminated, including by providing any information you think may impact iProperty's decision in relation to your employment. If you would like, you may provide your response in writing prior to the meeting.

You are welcome to bring a support person to the meeting. The role of your support person would be to provide support only, not to become involved in discussions. If you would like to bring a support person, please advise me in advance of the meeting who that person will be, so we can confirm that they are an appropriate support person.

At this stage, no decision regarding the future of your employment has been made. iProperty will take into account any information you provide prior to making its decision. However, if you choose not to provide a response, iProperty will make a decision in relation to your employment on the basis of the information available to it at the time.

Your employment will remain suspended on full pay. During the period of your suspension, you must remain contactable during working hours. You must not perform any work, or have any contact with iProperty staff, customers, or suppliers. You must also keep this matter confidential. Any breach of these requirements may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.

[27] A response to the Show Cause Letter was sent to the Respondent on 9 May 2025[30] on behalf of the Applicant by her then legal representative, Slater & Gordon (the Show Cause Response Letter). A show cause meeting (the Show Cause Meeting) was then held on 12 May 2025 via Zoom to which the Applicant attended, accompanied by her husband Mr Simpson. Mr Kan and Mr Georgopoulos attended on behalf of the Respondent. Mr Kan states that the Applicant advised during the meeting that she relied on the responses set out in the Show Cause Response Letter from Slater & Gordon. The Applicant continued to maintain that she had no involvement in the listing or sale of the properties advertised on realestate.com and confirmed after conferring with her husband that the Global Property Profile had been created in early February 2025. In responding to further questions from Mr Georgopoulos, the Applicant advised that the email address contained in the Global Property Profile was managed by her husband and that she did not have access to the phone number referred to in the Global Property Profile[31].

[28] Immediately following the Show Cause Meeting, Mr Kan met with Ms Gaspero and instructed her to check whether anyone at the Respondent had been in contact with the Applicant via the mobile phone number listed on the Global Property Profile. Mr Kan states that he took this action to verify the accuracy of the Applicant's statement during the Show Cause Meeting that she did not have access to the mobile phone number listed as her contact number in the Global Property Profile. Investigations by Ms Gaspero revealed that the Applicant had sent messages from said phone number[32].

[29] The Applicant was cross-examined regarding the phone number listed in the Global Property Profile. She conceded that despite her response during the Show Cause Meeting, it was her personal phone number but claimed that she did not use it during her normal business hours while working for the Respondent. She also sought to explain the response she gave to Mr Kan and Mr Georgopoulos during the meeting on 1 May 2025, when she allegedly denied the phone was hers. She explained that she intended to convey during the meeting that she did not use the phone during normal working hours. She also explained that she shared her personal phone with her husband when dealing with Global Property listing queries that came through on her phone. She was unable to explain why her husband had need to use her phone. When further questioned, the Applicant could also not recall whether she had used her personal phone to make contact with parties regarding properties listed with Global Property.

[30] Mr Kan states that after considering the Applicant's responses and all of the information available, he concluded that the Applicant failed to disclose her involvement in Global Property or the sale and listing of the properties referred to above. Mr Kan expressed his belief that the Applicant showed a lack of understanding of her behaviour and instead denied responsibility; and that the conduct, by reason of the Applicant's access to confidential information, created a conflict of interest. According to Mr Kan, the conduct was in breach of clause 2.7 of the Employment Agreement and amounted to serious misconduct. He had lost trust and confidence in the Applicant's ability to perform her duties in the best interests of the Respondent and that termination of employment was an appropriate and proportionate outcome[33].

[31] When cross-examined on the dismissal decision, Mr Kan agreed that he was the decision maker but denied that his decision was predetermined, or that the Applicant had been denied procedural fairness. He further responded that the decision to suspend the Applicant and her access to the Respondent's systems did not indicate predetermination of the matter. It was simply managing the risk during the investigation given the severity of the allegations against the Applicant. When pressed on his view that the Applicant's behaviour constituted serious misconduct, he agreed he had received no complaints from any clients regarding the Applicant's conduct and could not point to any actual damage to the Respondent, be that financial or reputational. He rejected that a warning or other lesser consequence was a reasonable alternative given the nature of the Applicant's misconduct.

[32] Mr Kan sent the Applicant a letter on 12 May 2025 (Termination Letter) advising her of her summary dismissal effective that day in the following terms;

I refer to our ongoing discussions in relation to your employment with iProperty Express Pty Ltd (iProperty).

This letter confirms the summary termination of your employment with iProperty on the basis of your conduct set out in our letter dated 9 May 2025.

iProperty has come to this decision taking into account your response to our invitation to show cause provided on 12 May 2025 and the letter from your legal representative dated 9 May 2025.

Your employment will terminate today. You will be paid any:

accrued but unused annual leave owing to you; and

unpaid out-of-pocket expenses, subject to and provided they have been incurred in accordance with clause 4.3 of your employment contract.

We take this opportunity to remind you of your obligations to iProperty that are ongoing following the termination of your employment, including in respect of its confidential information, intellectual property, and the post-employment restrictions set out at clause 14 of your employment contract dated 29 May 2024.

Please ensure that you promptly return any property belonging to iProperty that is in your possession, including any confidential information.

[33] Mr Kan states that further inquiries into the Applicant's conduct while employed by the Respondent has since established that the Applicant sent an email from her work email address to her personal email address on 13 February 2025 attaching an excel spreadsheet[35] (the Excel Spreadsheet) containing a list of potential clients of the Respondent. The list included names and email addresses of individuals attending an industry conference on 18 February 2025 (the 18 February Conference) that the Respondent paid to sponsor for the purpose of advertising its offerings. The Applicant's husband also attended the 18 February Conference in his capacity as an employee of Sycom, a company that performs electrical, gas and smoke alarm safety checks on rental properties[36].

[34] Mr Kan states that he was concerned about the Applicant sending the above-referred email to her personal email address on 13 February 2025 because she had no legitimate reason for doing so and when considered in combination with the Applicant's Global Property Profile and Realestate Profile, he considered she may use the information to the detriment of the Respondent[37]. On 19 June 2025, the Respondent's legal representative Baker McKenzie sent a letter[38] to the Applicant's legal representative on Mr Kan's instruction in relation to this conduct, requesting an undertaking that the Applicant confirm that she had complied and would continue to comply with her ongoing obligations to the Respondent under her Employment Agreement. In a response[39] sent by Slater & Gordon on the Applicant's behalf on 23 June 2025, the Applicant confirmed that she did not have any confidential information of the Respondent in her 'possession, custody or control', would continue to comply with her ongoing obligations to the Respondent and declined to provide an undertaking sought by the Respondent.

[35] Mr Kan rejects that the email sent by the Applicant to her personal email address on 13 February 2025 did not contain confidential information as it included contact details of prospective clients. Further, he claims the Applicant had no authority to send the Excel Spreadsheet to her personal email address and also notes that Mr Simpson is now involved with Global Property[40].

[36] Mr Kan also states that on or around 14 August 2025, Baker McKenzie advised him that the Applicant has a profile[41] on www.domain.com.au (the Domain Profile) that identifies her as a sales representative at a company called Schroeder & Wallis. The Domain Profile includes the following statements;

(i) "Taylah Chislett is part of the team at Schroeder & Wallis located at 48/1470 Ferntree Gully Rd, Knoxfield VIC 3180, and currently has 2 listings for sale"; and

(ii) "Taylah Chislett from Schroeder& Wallis has sold 5 properties in the last 12 months, with an average sale price of $866k and total sales valued at $4.3m. Taylah Chislett worked with Howie Simpson on 5 of these sales"

[37] The Domain Profile also attributes a number of sales and current listings to the Applicant as a secondary agent, relevantly including the following two 'sold' properties;

(i) the property at 275 Dandelion Drive, Rowville, Victoria, 3178, sold on 6 May 2025; and

(ii) the property at 21 Lucerne Road, Ferntree Gully, Victoria, 3156, sold on 29 April 2025.

[38] Mr Kan observes that the above two 'sold' properties also appeared on the Realestate Profile although the dates of sale of the two properties on the Domain Profile are different to the dates of sale for those same properties on the Realestate Profile. Mr Kan also established through viewing the profile of Schroeder & Wallis on the domain.com website that it is related to Global Property[42], this being confirmed by an ASIC historical organisational extract[43] obtained.

[39] The Applicant states her belief that the Respondent has tolerated other staff engaging in secondary employment. She refers to Mr Antypas who Ms Mattinson told her had been allowed to engage in his auctioneering business in North Melbourne. She also refers to Ms Kelly Dickens, Chief Growth Officer of the Respondent, who maintained secondary employment through her merchandise business[44].

[40] Mr Kan gave evidence that Mr Antypas received written consent to provide auctioneering services outside his employment with the approval provided on the basis that such activities did not present any conflict of interest with the Respondent's business. He further stated that Ms Kovacev operates a small a small hobby business with her daughters, offering craft party services which is entirely unrelated to her role with the Respondent and does not present any conflict of interest[45].

[41] When cross-examined on the circumstances of Mr Antypas. it was put to Mr Kan that his treatment of the Applicant revealed differential treatment. Mr Kan rejected the proposition and drew the distinction between the case of the Mr Antypas and the Applicant on three bases. Firstly, Mr Antypas had sought and been given approval by the Respondent to engage in his auctioneering work, unlike the Applicant. Secondly, Mr Antypas did not have a public 'profile,' unlike the Applicant's profile across different websites. Thirdly, the nature of auctioneering is fundamentally different to a 'director' of a real estate company who is in part charged with responsibility for marketing and growing the business. By contrast, an auctioneer comes in to perform a discreet function. The Applicant's role with Global Property caused a far greater conflict according to Mr Kan, having regard to the Applicant's access to confidential information.

[42] Mr Simpson states that he held discussions with the Applicant over the years that one day they would like to become real estate agents and own their own business. In exploring how that might be achieved, Mr Simpson says they held discussions with Mr Schroeder including in or around February 2025 when Mr Schroeder clarified that as real estate agents with Global Property, Mr Simpson and the Applicant could create their own company, but they would need to increase their reputation and visibility. Mr Simpson states that he and the Applicant agreed with Mr Schroeder that Mr Simpson would commence with Global Property, the Applicant would remain employed by the Respondent, and to assist increase their reputations and brand awareness, the Applicant would be listed as a secondary agent on any properties Mr Simpson was selling[46].

[43] Mr Simpson further states that it was agreed that as the Applicant remained an employee of the Respondent, he would solely manage any enquiries directed to the Applicant's Global Property Profile and/or enquiries via the Realestate.com website and that the Applicant would have no involvement with Global Property or any listings until she finished her employment with the Respondent[47]. He further states that he caused the Applicant's profile to be listed on Global Property's website through a verbal discussion with Mr Schroeder to which discussion the Applicant was not a party[48].

[44] Mr Simpson refers to the seven property listings referred to in Annexure C of the Respondent's Form F3 response. He advises that he was the primary agent for each of those properties and that he caused the Applicant to be listed as a secondary agent to increase the likelihood of a prospective seller locating the Applicant's profile and engaging her services once she had finalised her role with the Respondent. Mr Simpson further states that the Applicant assisted him by driving him to open house inspections and auctions because his driver's license was suspended but she did not provide any help in the process of listing or selling the properties. Nor did she conduct any open house inspections, handle inquiries from prospective buyers or owners or the negotiation of terms for any of the properties as he (Mr Simpson) completed all tasks as the primary agent[49].

[45] When questioned on the creation of the Applicant's Global Profile, Mr Simpson clarified that he only 'caused' it to be created, did not prepare it himself, simply provided the Applicant's profile photo to Mr Schroeder who then prepared and uploaded the profile. Mr Simpson also confirmed that the Applicant had 'partial knowledge' of the profile being developed and loaded on the Global Property website. Mr Simpson also stated he was not engaged over the actual content of the profile and nor did he check in with Mr Schroeder over the profile content. Mr Simpson was also questioned on the purpose of the Applicant's Global Property Profile to which he responded that the profile was required for 'safety' reasons and elaborated that as the Applicant was accompanying him to open houses it was necessary from a vendor's perspective to know which agents were in their house. He agreed that neither he nor the Applicant had raised this point prior to the proceedings, which he justified on the basis of having given enough information in the material filed. He denied that his raising the 'safety' issue as a reason for the Applicant's Global Property Profile was untruthful. When pressed, he accepted that a key driver of the creation of the Applicant's Global Property Profile was to boost the Applicant's 'brand' and 'visibility' along with his own.

[46] When questioned on the Applicant's involvement in property sales, Mr Simpson sought to clarify the evidence in his witness statement that the Applicant 'would not have any role with Global Property or any listing s until she had finished her employment with the Respondent.' He accepted that the Applicant had in fact been engaged on a 'casual basis, had driven him to/from open houses, had acted as an open house host and been identified on listed and sold properties as a secondary agent. He explained that what he meant by his sworn evidence on the Applicant's role was that she would not be involved in the actual listing or sale transactions.

[47] The Applicant states that she has made various efforts to secure alternate employment following her dismissal, including applying for 21 jobs, maintaining contact with recruitment agencies and attending 12 interviews. She states she has now secured alternate employment, commencing on 11 August 2025, and is in receipt of remuneration in excess of what the Respondent had paid her[50].

[48] A threshold issue to be determined in this matter is whether the Applicant has been dismissed from his employment. The circumstances in which a person is taken to be "dismissed" are set out in s 386 of the Act. Section 386(1) relevantly provides as follows:

(a) the person's employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer's initiative; or

(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.

[49] Section 386(2) of the Act sets out circumstances where an employee has not been dismissed, none of which are presently relevant. There was no dispute, and I find that the Applicant's employment with the Respondent terminated at the initiative of the Respondent.

[50] Having found that the Applicant was dismissed with the meaning of s 386(1) of the Act, I am now obliged under section 396 of the Act, to decide the following matters before considering the merits of the application:

(a) whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 394(2);

(b) whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal;

(c) whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.

[51] Relevant to the determination of the preliminary matters I am satisfied that;

the Applicant was dismissed on 12 May 2025 and filed her unfair dismissal application on 30 May 2025, that latter date being within 21 days of the date of her dismissal;

at the time of the Applicant's dismissal, the Respondent employed 28 staff and is therefore not a small business employer within the meaning of s 23 of the Act;

the Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10 June 2024 and at the time of her dismissal, had been employed for eleven months, that period being more than the minimum employment period of six months;

the Applicant's annual base salary was approximately $80,000, on top of which she received superannuation contributions and a motor vehicle allowance; and

the Applicant was not dismissed due to the Respondent no longer requiring the Applicant's job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the Respondent's enterprise.

[52] Having considered each of the initial matters, I am satisfied that the application was made within the required period in s 394(2), the Applicant was a person protected from unfair dismissal, the small business fair dismissal code does not apply, and the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. I am now required to consider the merits of the application, and it is to that I now turn.

Was the dismissal harsh, unjust, or unreasonable?

[53] Section 387 of the Act provides that, considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, the Commission must take into account:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and

(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and

(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and

(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person - whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and

(f) the degree to which the size of the employer's enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.

Was there a valid reason for the dismissal related to the Applicant's capacity or conduct - s 387(a)?

[54] In order to be a valid reason, the reason for the dismissal should be "sound, defensible or well founded"[51] and should not be "capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced[52]." However, the Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it were in the position of the employer[53].

[55] I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the Applicant was complicit with her husband in engaging in a course of conduct that resulted in the Global Property Profile being prepared and placed on Global Property's website on or about February 2025. On Mr Simpson's own evidence, the Applicant was party to discussions with Mr Schroeder and agreed a strategy with Mr Simpson to build her and Mr Simpspon's profile and visibility, that being aligned with their ambition to own their own real estate agency. Her consistent denials of involvement in the Global Property Profile during the course of the Respondent's investigation is not to be believed.

[56] I am also satisfied that the Applicant was employed by Global Property on or shortly after February 2025 on a casual basis. While claiming during the investigation that she did not enter into an employment contract with Global Property, she reluctantly accepted during cross-examination that she had been engaged by Global Property on a casual basis, albeit she had not signed an employment contract. The Applicant dissembled on this point during cross-examination, which when added with her dishonesty in addressing this matter during the Respondent's investigation, causes me to treat the Applicant as a witness of poor credit. The lack of candour or honesty in respect of the secondary employment and the Global Property Profile reflects poorly on the Applicant, particularly in circumstances where her ambition is to become a successful real estate agent. As to the identification of the Applicant in the profile as a 'director' of Global Property, she accepted this was premature, misleading to a reasonable person and potentially fraudulent. Little more needs to be said about this particular conduct beyond stating that such conduct would do nothing to assist in dispelling an unfavourable view held by some people about the level of candour and honesty within the real estate industry.

[57] A further matter that goes to the Applicant's honesty is that of the role she actually performed with Global Property while employed by the Respondent. During the Respondent's investigation, the Applicant maintained she was not employed by Global Property, had received no money from them or completed any work for them. During the course of these proceedings, the Applicant initially conceded she had driven her husband to/from open houses that he was managing for Global Property. When pressed, she agreed that she had acted as an open house host. She could hardly deny this in light of correspondence received from Global Property owner Mr Schroeder, which confirmed her role as an open house host along with her casual employment status. It is apparent that the Applicant has attempted to conceal the full scope of her involvement with Global Property and the nature of her role. As regards her husband's claims that she was not involved in the listing of properties or sale transactions, I place little weight on that evidence given my view on the credit of Mr Simpson's evidence which I will shortly come to.

[58] A further point to be made is that the Applicant was dishonest in her response to Mr Kan and Mr Georgopoulos in their meeting on 1 May 2025 about the phone number listed as her contact number on the Global Property Profile. I am satisfied that her denial in that meeting that the listed number was hers was a deliberate lie, again intended to conceal the true nature of her involvement with Global Property while she was an employee of the Respondent. She accepted during these proceedings that her listed contact number on the Global Property Profile was her personal phone number; but then proceeded to provide an utterly unconvincing explanation that she and her husband shared that phone for the purpose of contacting parties in relation to listed properties. The fact is that Mr Simpson's profile with Global Property, listed a different mobile phone number to that listed for the Applicant . In these circumstances there could be no reason why the Applicant would have needed to share her phone with Mr Simpson. I am satisfied that contrary to her evidence given in these proceedings, the Applicant used her personal phone for the purpose of receiving and making contact with parties in relation to properties on which she was listed as the secondary agent.

[59] Turning now to Mr Simpson's evidence regarding the Applicant's Global Property Profile and her role with Global Property. Mr Simpson sought to distance himself from the creation and placement of the Applicant's Global Property Profile. He clarified that he only 'caused' for the profile to be created and left it to Mr Schroeder to develop the content and upload it. I found that explanation unconvincing against the background of Mr Simpson and the Applicant's stated ambition to one day run their own real estate agency. Mr Simpson made clear in his evidence that they (he and the Applicant) agreed there was a need for them to build their 'reputations and brand visibility.' To suggest, as Mr Simpson did, that he had no role and did not engage with Ms Schroeder in developing the content of the Applicant's Global Property Profile apart from providing Mr Schroeder with a photo is not believable.

[60] Mr Simpson's evidence on the rationale for the establishment of the Applicant's Global Property Profile also changed during the course of the proceedings. In his witness statement Mr Simpson stated that his and the Applicant's profiles on the Global Property website were established to build their 'reputations and brand awareness.' When cross-examined on the reasons for the Applicant's Global Property Profile, he claimed it was for 'safety' reasons. A reason not advanced at all by the Applicant during the Respondent's investigation, or during these proceedings, nor was it advanced by Mr Simpson in his evidence in chief. He denied that the 'safety' explanation was false although accepting that 'reputation and brand awareness' was an important driver.

[61] I found Mr Simpson to be evasive and unconvincing in his evidence and responded in a manner consistent with attempting to exculpate the Applicant from adverse findings regarding her conduct. Concessions, when made by Mr Simpson were reluctantly given. A further example of this could be seen in his evidence in chief where he stated that it was agreed with the Applicant that she would 'not have any involvement with Global Property until she had finished her employment with the Respondent.' Having regard to the concessions made by the Applicant during these proceedings regarding her role with Global Property, this statement of Mr Simpson was plainly false. When confronted on that point, Mr Simpson then sought to clarify that he meant the Applicant would have no role in the actual listing and sale transactions which Mr Simpson would exclusively deal with. I have no confidence in Mr Simpson's evidence that the Applicant's role was so confined as he latterly claimed. He is not a witness of credit.

[62] From the above I conclude that the Applicant had knowledge of the Global Property Profile from or around the time it was created. She failed to disclose the profile to the Respondent or remove it prior to being confronted with the Respondent's concerns on 29 April 2025. I am further satisfied that the Applicant was engaged by Global Property as a casual employee from on or about February 2025 and performed work in that capacity at a time when she remained an employee of the Respondent and had access to confidential information of the Respondent in her capacity as a Software Training Assistant & Support Officer. Her conduct was contrary to the terms of her Employment Agreement, specifically clauses 2.7, 2.9 and 2.11.

[63] I am satisfied that the Applicant's conduct was contrary to her Employment Agreement and was sufficiently serious to constitute 'serious misconduct' within the meaning of Reg 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations. I make this finding on the basis that I am satisfied the conduct was 'wilful or deliberate' and is 'inconsistent with continuation of the services.' Separate to the Applicant's conduct of engaging in secondary employment without consent on which I have made findings, I am further satisfied that the Applicant's conduct through the course of the investigation was dishonest. That on its own is sufficient to establish that the Applicant engaged in serious misconduct. Whether considered together or separately, the Applicant's conduct of dishonesty and engaging in secondary employment without consent constitutes serious misconduct and establishes a valid reason for her dismissal. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unfair.

[64] Notification of a valid reason for termination must be given to an employee protected from unfair dismissal before the decision is made to terminate their employment,[54] and in explicit,[55] plain and clear terms.[56]

[65] The Applicant was notified via email on 29 April 2025 by Mr Kan of concerns over the Global Property Profile and that her conduct appeared to be in breach of her Employment Agreement. These matters were discussed in a meeting on 1 May 2025 following which the Applicant responded via email on 5 May 2025. On 9 May 2025, the Applicant received the Show Cause Letter which invited her to a further meeting on 12 May 2025. The Show Cause Letter raised further concerns with the Applicant regarding her Realestate Profile in which it was stated she had sold three properties and had two more listed for sale. The Applicant responded through her legal representatives on 9 May 2025 to the Show Cause Letter and attended the Show Cause Meeting on 12 May 2025.

[66] The Applicant contends that the decision to dismiss her was pre-determined, evidenced by her suspension from duties, suspension of her systems access and by a 'preliminary view' formed by Mr Kan prior to the 12 May 2025 meeting that her conduct constituted serious misconduct. These contentions may be shortly disposed of. Firstly, the fact the Applicant was suspended from duties and had her systems access suspended does not indicate pre-determination of the outcome. It is standard practice for employers to suspend an employee and their access to systems pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations of serious misconduct. Secondly, Mr Kan's preliminary view was only that; and, based on his evidence which I accept, did not constitute his final view which was only reached after considering all information including the Applicant's responses at the Show Cause Meeting.

[67] I am satisfied on the basis of the above summarised chronology; the content of the 29 April 2025 correspondence, the Show Cause Letter and the meetings held on 1 & 12 May 2025 that the Applicant was notified of the valid reason for her dismissal before the decision was made. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unfair.

Opportunity to respond to any reason related to capacity or conduct - s 387(c)

[68] An employee protected from unfair dismissal should be provided with an opportunity to respond to any reason for their dismissal relating to their conduct or capacity. An opportunity to respond is to be provided before a decision is taken to terminate the employee's employment.[57]

[69] The Applicant submits she had insufficient time to respond to the various allegations put against her by the Respondent. It is worth noting that from the time the Applicant was first notified of the Respondent's concerns on 29 April 2025, the investigation and disciplinary process took place over a period of two weeks during which period the Applicant attended two meetings, had time to engage Slater & Gordon, and responded in writing on two occasions. That timeline of events does not support the Applicant's submission that the process was procedurally unfair.

[70] The Applicant also submits that the loss of her access to the Respondent's system from on or about 29 April 2025 prevented her from properly responding to the allegations. When pressed, the Applicant's representative was unable to identify what information was unable to be accessed by the Applicant in the period between 29 April and 12 May 2025 that bore upon the Applicant's alleged misconduct of engaging in secondary employment without prior notification or consent. The Applicant's representative accepted that any information that might have been accessed by the Applicant in that two-week period was related to the grievances she had with her employer which she said led to her resignation. Those matters, while perhaps informing the Applicant's reasons for resignation, are not relevant to the alleged misconduct. I am consequently not persuaded that the Applicant's suspension of systems access denied her an opportunity to respond to the alleged misconduct.

[71] Without restating the chronology of events set out above at [65], it is apparent that the Applicant was able to respond to the allegations of misconduct put against her. She did so at a meeting on 1 May 2025, in an email to Mr Kan on 5 May 2025, via correspondence from her legal representatives in the Show Cause Response Letter on 9 May 2025 and in the Show Cause Meeting on 12 May 2025. I am comfortably satisfied that the Applicant was afforded an opportunity to respond to the reason for her dismissal related to her conduct. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unfair.

[72] Where an employee protected from unfair dismissal has requested a support person be present to assist in discussions relating to the dismissal, an employer should not unreasonably refuse that person being present. It is not contended by the Applicant that she was refused a request to be accompanied by a support person. The evidence indicates the Applicant was accompanied by Mr Simpson in the 12 May 2025 meeting. I consequently regard this factor as a neutral consideration.

Warnings regarding unsatisfactory performance - s 387(e)

[73] The dismissal did not relate to unsatisfactory performance. This factor is therefore not relevant in the circumstances.

Impact of the size of the Respondent on procedures followed - s 387(f)

[74] The Respondent's Form F3 indicates that at the time of the Applicant's dismissal it employed 28 employees. While a relatively small employer, the Respondent does not contend that its size adversely impacted on what it described as a fair and transparent process in investigating the Applicant's conduct and then dismissing her. This factor weighs neutrally in my consideration.

Impact of absence of dedicated human resources management specialist/expertise on procedures followed - s 387(g)

[75] The evidence in this matter indicates that the Respondent did not have access to the services of an in-house human resources specialist. That said, the Respondent does not contend that the absence of in-house HR expertise adversely impacted the process it followed in dismissing the Applicant. This factor weighs neutrally in my consideration.

[76] The Applicant raises a number of matters she submits weigh in favour of a finding of the dismissal being unfair. Those matters are the financial, reputational, emotional and psychological impacts flowing from the dismissal, the absence of any prior disciplinary action, alleged differential treatment of the Applicant compared to other employees in a similar position and that the conduct did not meet the threshold of serious misconduct, thus rendering the dismissal harsh.

[77] Dealing with each of the matters raised by the Applicant. Firstly, I accept that the Applicant may have suffered some financial impact from her dismissal although the loss of employment routinely produces that impact. I note in any case that the Applicant had already tendered her resignation, thus putting a cap on any financial losses she can reasonably attribute to her dismissal. Further, beyond a general submission on the financial impact of the dismissal, there is no evidence before me of particular financial hardship as might be evidenced for example by personal loan, credit card, or mortgage payment defaults. I am not satisfied that the issue of the alleged financial impact of the dismissal weighs in favour of a finding of unfairness.

[78] Turning to the health impacts of her dismissal, the Applicant has not tendered any evidence going to the alleged health impacts of her dismissal. As such I am unable to conclude that she has suffered more than the normal distress associated with the sudden loss of employment. Again, the impact of the sudden loss of employment is tempered by the fact that the Applicant on her own evidence was so unhappy in her employment with the Respondent that she tendered her resignation on 14 April 2025. The matter of the alleged health impacts of the dismissal does not assist the Applicant.

[79] The absence of any prior disciplinary action does not strike me as particularly remarkable given the Applicant's relatively short period of service. Nor is the absence of prior performance or conduct warnings a shield against dismissal in circumstances where misconduct is sufficiently serious as to justify dismissal as I have found to be the case in the present matter. It follows that I am not satisfied that the absence of prior warnings weighs in favour of a finding of unfairness.

[80] As to the alleged differential treatment compared to Mr Antypas, I do not accept that the Respondent has applied a different standard in the case of the Applicant. The distinctions between the Respondent's approach to Mr Antypas and the Applicant is clear. Firstly, Mr Antypas sought prior consent from the Respondent to engage in auctioneering and was then authorised to do so. This is in stark contrast to the Applicant's circumstances where she failed to disclose or seek consent and when confronted over that conduct has engaged in dissembling and dishonest conduct in order to conceal the true nature of her secondary employment. Secondly, the nature of the role of a 'director' of a real estate company is fundamentally different to the role of an auctioneer, the latter role fulfilling a discreet function at the end of a property sales campaign. The former role can be safely assumed to be actively engaged in the development and growth of a real estate business which I am satisfied would benefit from access to confidential information of the type accessible to the Applicant in her employment with the Respondent. These clear differences distinguish the circumstances of the Applicant's treatment from that of Mr Antypas such that I am not satisfied the Applicant has been treated harshly.

[81] Finally, while conceding in her closing submissions that she should have sought consent to engage in secondary employment, the Applicant submits that the 'punishment does not fit the crime' in that the conduct does not meet the 'serious misconduct' threshold. That submission is rejected. I have already found above that the Applicant's conduct constitutes serious misconduct within the meaning of Reg 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations. It does not require further consideration and does not weigh in favour of a finding of harshness.

Is the Commission satisfied that the dismissal of the Applicant was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable?

[82] I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in s 387 of the Act as relevant. I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining whether the termination was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.[58]

[83] As set out above, I am satisfied that a valid reason for the Applicant's dismissal related to her conduct has been established. I am also satisfied that the Applicant was notified of a valid reason for her dismissal prior to a decision being made to terminate her employment and was given an opportunity to respond to the alleged misconduct. The dismissal was not related to the Applicant's performance, and the size and capacity of the Respondent did not impact on the procedures that it followed and as such these matters weigh neutrally in my consideration of whether the dismissal was unfair. No other matters weigh in favour of the finding that the dismissal was unfair.

[84] It follows from the above that having considered each of the matters specified in s.387 of the Act, I am satisfied that the dismissal of the Applicant was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable because there was a valid reason for the dismissal, the process followed by the Respondent was procedurally fair and no other factors weigh in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair.

[85] Not being satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, I am not satisfied that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of s 385 of the Act.   The application is consequently dismissed. An Order will be separately issued giving effect to my decision

[1] Exhibit R1, Witness Statement of Mr Junhai Kan, dated 27 August 2025, Annexure JK1 9 Taylah Chislett Employment Agreement, dated 31 May 2024

[2] Exhibit R1, at [7], Annexure JK1, Schedule 1 Position Description

[3] Exhibit A1, Witness Statement of Taylah Chislett, dated 6 August 2025, at [6]a&b.

[6] Exhibit A1, at [6]e., Annexure B, office chat message, dated 9 April 2025

[8] Exhibit A1, at [6]g., Annexure C, Message from Junhai Kan,

[11] Exhibit R1, at[10], Annexure JK2, Letter of resignation, dated 14 April 2025

[12] Exhibit R1, at [12], Annexure JK3, Global Property profile of Applicant

[14] Exhibit R1, at [14], Annexure JK5

[16] Exhibit R1, Annexure JK6, Email from Junhai Kan to Applicant dated 29 April 2025

[21] Exhibit R1, Annexure JK7, Email from Applicant to Junhai Kan, dated 5 May 2025

[22] Exhibit R1, at [20], Annexure JK8, Realestate.com Property Listings and Sales of Applicant

[24] Exhibit R1, at [21], Annexure JK9

[26] Exhibit AX, Letter from Bill Schroeder to Fair Work Commission, dated 2 September 2025, titled Re: Matter of Taylah Chislett v iProperty Express Pty Ltd (U2025/9292)

[29] Exhibit R1, Annexure 9, Invitation to Show Cause Letter, dated 9 May 2025

[30] Exhibit R1, Annexure JK12, Letter from Slater & Gordon, dated 9 May 2025

Taylah Chislett v iProperty Express Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3420

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (215 paragraphs)

Taylah Chislett v iProperty Express Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3420 (14 November 2025)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (4)