When an Unfair Dismissal Application Fails Before the Merits Are Heard in the case of Wedaarachchige v MyHomeCare Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 17

Not all unfair dismissal applications fail because a worker’s claim lacks substance. Some fail because the process itself breaks down.

The Fair Work Commission’s decision in Wedaarachchige v MyHomeCare Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 17 is a clear example of how an unfair dismissal application can be dismissed without any findings being made about the fairness of the dismissal itself. Instead, the case turned entirely on non-participation and the Commission’s power to summarily dismiss applications with no reasonable prospects of success.

This decision carries important lessons for workers—particularly self-represented applicants—about engagement, communication, and the procedural obligations that accompany an unfair dismissal claim.

Wedaarachchige v MyHomeCare Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 17

The Case in Brief (Precís)

Mrs Ayanka Wedaarachchige lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 26 June 2025, challenging the termination of her employment by MyHomeCare Pty Ltd.

The application progressed through the early procedural stages but stalled due to the applicant’s absence:

• Two conciliation conferences were listed (6 August and 16 October 2025), which Mrs Wedaarachchige did not attend.

• A case management conference was listed for 10 December 2025, which she also did not attend.

• The Commission attempted repeated contact by phone and email.

• Written warnings were issued advising that the application may be dismissed if there was no response.

Despite these efforts, Mrs Wedaarachchige did not engage with the Commission at any stage following the filing of her application.

As a result, the Commission dismissed the application pursuant to section 587 of the Act, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success due to the applicant’s non-participation . A formal dismissal order was subsequently issued.

The Legal Framework: Section 587 of the Fair Work Act

The central provision in this case was section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which gives the Commission power to dismiss applications in limited circumstances, including where:

• the application is not made in accordance with the Act;

• the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

• the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

Importantly, the Commission emphasised that this power must be exercised cautiously. It is not a shortcut to dispose of weak claims, nor is it intended to punish applicants. Rather, it is a mechanism to ensure the effective administration of justice where a matter cannot meaningfully proceed.

Key Authority Applied

Commissioner Lim relied on and adopted the reasoning of Deputy President Easton in Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd t/a Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302.

That decision confirms several important principles:

1. Section 587 is discretionary, not automatic.

2. It should be exercised sparingly and with care.

3. An application may have no reasonable prospects of success where, even if all allegations were accepted, the matter cannot proceed to determination.

4. An applicant’s failure to participate can itself render an application incapable of success.

In Wedaarachchige, the Commission found that without the applicant’s attendance, instructions, or submissions, there was no evidentiary or procedural basis upon which the Commission could fairly determine the claim.

What This Case Is — and Is Not — About

It is important to be clear about what this decision does not say.

• The Commission did not find that Mrs Wedaarachchige was unfairly dismissed.

• The Commission did not find that she was fairly dismissed.

• The Commission did not assess the employer’s conduct at all.

The dismissal of the application was procedural, not substantive. The merits of the claim were never reached.

This distinction matters greatly, particularly because the dismissal is now a published decision, permanently accessible and attached to the applicant’s name.

The Real Risks Highlighted by This Case

1. Filing an application is only the beginning

Lodging a Form F2 does not carry an unfair dismissal claim forward on its own. Active participation is required at every stage.

2. Non-attendance has consequences

Failing to attend conciliations or conferences—especially without explanation—will almost always be interpreted as abandonment of the claim.

3. Silence is not neutral

Ignoring correspondence from the Commission does not pause proceedings. It actively undermines the viability of the application.

4. Published decisions can be unforgiving

Even where a worker may have had a potentially arguable claim, procedural dismissal results in a public outcome that does not tell their side of the story.

A Broader Caution for Workers

This case underscores a broader reality: unfair dismissal litigation is not risk-free.

Once an application is filed, the Commission expects applicants to:

• engage in good faith;

• respond to directions;

• attend listings; and

• prosecute their claim with reasonable diligence.

Where life circumstances, health, fear, or confusion interfere with that capacity, workers should seek assistance early rather than disengaging. Withdrawal, adjournment requests, or alternative pathways may avoid the kind of outcome seen here.

Final Observations

Wedaarachchige v MyHomeCare Pty Ltd is not a judgment on the worker’s character or the validity of her grievance. It is a procedural decision—one that highlights how easily a claim can fail before justice is even tested, and how unforgiving the system can be once disengagement occurs.

For workers considering or already pursuing unfair dismissal claims, the lesson is clear:participation is not optional, and silence can be decisive.

MYUNION exists to ensure workers understand not only their rights—but also the procedural realities and risks of pursuing them through formal legal processes.