How a one-day gap between dismissal and workers' comp sank a court case
A casual mine site worker was dismissed after a workplace injury. His workers' compensation claim came the day after. The timing proved decisive.
On 2 April 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia refused to grant Raphael Charpentier an extension of time to file a general protections claim against his former employer, Rocktech Pty Ltd, a small business in Western Australia's Goldfields region. Charpentier alleged he was dismissed in retaliation for making a workers' compensation claim following a workplace injury.
Charpentier began working for Rocktech in May 2025 as a casual, site-based trainee ground support technician, to be assigned to a customer's mine site. He sustained a workplace injury on 29 August 2025. His workers' compensation claim is dated 16 September 2025. Rocktech's general manager, Kurt van den Elzen, gave evidence that he informed Charpentier at a meeting on 15 September 2025 "that he was to be stood down as [Rocktech] no longer had any work for him." That is one day before the compensation claim was lodged.
Asked about this at the hearing, Charpentier confirmed he had submitted the workers' compensation claim after his dismissal.
Charpentier maintained that the reasons given for his dismissal, that he had been "banned" from the Evolution Mining Mungari site and that there was no other work available for him, were not genuine. He said he was never given proof of the ban and that Rocktech continued hiring workers after his dismissal with work available at other sites. He stated: "I say the stated reason for my dismissal was not genuine and that I was dismissed because I exercised a workplace right within the meaning of s.340 of the Fair Work Act 2009."
Charpentier also gave evidence of significant financial hardship following the end of his employment, including approximately five months without work.
Van den Elzen told a different story. Rocktech had hired Charpentier on a casual basis to cover employees on leave, initially for three months, though the engagement stretched to four. Van den Elzen gave evidence that he had intended to stand Charpentier down on the day of the injury, 29 August 2025. Due to site requirements, Charpentier was prohibited from returning to his full pre-injury duties, but van den Elzen subsequently tried to arrange light workshop duties. He later became aware through Rocktech's operations supervisor that Charpentier had not attended work despite being rostered on. On 15 September 2025, Charpentier contacted van den Elzen to say he had received full medical clearance and wished to return to site work. Van den Elzen met with him that morning and informed him he was to be stood down, as Rocktech's regular staff had returned from leave and the business was overbooked for staff.
The court noted Charpentier had not had an opportunity to test Rocktech's evidence and declined to evaluate it in detail. Judge Ladhams considered it possible Charpentier was alleging he was dismissed because he had proposed to make a workers' compensation claim, rather than because he had already made one. The merits were described as not strong, but not entirely without some prospect of success.
On 2 April 2026, Judge Ladhams found that Charpentier had not provided an adequate explanation for filing 33 days outside the statutory deadline and refused to grant the extension of time. Rocktech sought a costs order of $5,000. The judge deferred the decision, indicating the judge would hear further from the parties before considering whether to make a costs order under the Fair Work Act.
The case underscores the importance of documenting termination decisions when workplace injuries are involved. Rocktech's defence rested on a contemporaneous account of the business reasons for the dismissal. Those reasons were never tested at a full hearing, but their presence in the record shaped the court's assessment throughout.
