A text exchange two days later undercut the employer's entire resignation argument
A workplace argument over phone use spiralled into a Fair Work dispute over whether an employee resigned or was pushed out.
The case, Goss v Cornerstone Dental Group Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1169, decided on 7 April 2026, centred on an exchange between Shawn Taka Edward Goss and Dr Vernice Lo, a director of Cornerstone Dental Group, which trades as Dental Advance.
On 7 November 2025, Dr Lo raised concerns with Goss about his phone use during work hours. The conversation quickly went sideways. According to Goss, he told Dr Lo at the end of their exchange that he would look for other work and give notice once he found a new role. According to Dr Lo, Goss resigned on the spot.
What happened next is where the picture gets complicated.
Goss left his shift early that day and exited all company WhatsApp group chats. Two days later, on 9 November 2025, he texted Dr Lo to say he would not be attending work the following day. Dr Lo acknowledged the message, making no mention of any resignation.
On 10 November 2025, Goss emailed Dental Advance formally tendering his resignation. He referenced plans to see his GP on 12 November 2025 for a stress leave certificate and advised he would be unable to work that week. That same day, Dr Lo responded with a letter confirming what she described as Goss's verbal resignation on 7 November 2025, stating he had abandoned his post and that his departure took immediate effect.
Goss filed a general protections application with the Fair Work Commission on 27 November 2025, alleging the termination contravened his workplace rights. Dental Advance objected on jurisdictional grounds, arguing Goss had voluntarily resigned and was not dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. It also described the application as vexatious and alleged it was pursued to extract a financial settlement where no dismissal had occurred.
On 9 February 2026, three days before the scheduled hearing, Goss withdrew his application after receiving legal advice. He cited delays in accessing the Workplace Advice Service over the holiday period.
Dental Advance then sought $750 in legal costs, arguing it should have been reasonably apparent to Goss that his case had no reasonable prospect of success. The costs application was not pressed on the basis the original claim was vexatious.
Deputy President Masson refused the application.
He found that the competing accounts of the 7 November 2025 interaction had never been tested, the matter having been discontinued before the hearing took place, and that the supporting evidence did not clearly favour either side. The 9 November 2025 text exchange, in which Dr Lo did not reference any prior resignation, and the 10 November 2025 email, in which Goss appeared to understand he still needed to formally give notice, both cut against Dental Advance's position.
"Those two pieces of communication with Dental Advance are not consistent with an immediate resignation having been tendered by him on 7 November 2025 as asserted by Dental Advance," Deputy President Masson wrote.
The Deputy President was not persuaded that Goss's case was "manifestly groundless or so lacking in merit or substance to be not reasonably arguable." He also declined to draw any negative inference from Goss's decision to withdraw, noting it is not uncommon for parties to do so prior to a formal hearing.
The costs application was dismissed.
The case highlights what can go wrong when an employer treats a heated exchange as a resignation without seeking clear, written confirmation. The absence of any acknowledgment of a resignation at the time it was allegedly given, and a text exchange two days later that made no reference to it, created enough doubt to make the general protections claim reasonably arguable, and to defeat a subsequent costs application. It also serves as a reminder that recovering costs in the Fair Work Commission requires meeting an exceptionally high bar, even when the other party walks away from proceedings.
