Court confirms protection gap between DV victims and those subject to ADVOs
A healthcare worker's claim that he was discriminated against after his employer learned of a domestic violence order against him was dismissed by a federal court.
Kul Raj Kandel, who worked as a specialized dementia carer at HammondCare, had his case thrown out on February 6, 2026, after Judge Doust ruled that being subject to an apprehended domestic violence order is not a protected attribute under Australian workplace law.
Kandel started working for the aged care provider in March or April 2024. His employment lasted just over three months before ending on July 16, 2024, shortly after his house manager raised concerns about an ADVO case involving his ex-wife.
According to court documents, the house manager expressed concerns about a police report related to the ADVO during a meeting on May 14, 2024. Kandel told the court he explained that the ADVO case was false and his police report had been cleared, but alleged the manager did not believe him.
Two months later, on July 15, 2024, Kandel received a call scheduling a meeting for the following day at 4pm. At that meeting, he said he was informed of bad feedback without being given details. He was then handed a termination letter that had been prepared six days earlier, on July 10, 2024.
Kandel argued the dismissal violated the Fair Work Act on multiple grounds. He claimed it breached section 351, which protects employees from discrimination based on protected attributes including being subjected to family and domestic violence. He also cited section 340, which protects workplace rights, and section 387, which sets out criteria for considering unfair dismissal.
The core question before the court was whether being the subject of an ADVO application attracted the same workplace protections as being a victim of domestic violence.
Judge Doust found it did not. While section 351 explicitly protects employees who have been subjected to family and domestic violence, the judge ruled that being the subject of an ADVO application does not fall within this protection or any other protected category under the Act.
The court noted: "The fact that the applicant was the subject of an application for an ADVO is not a matter that attracts protection in respect of adverse action under either ss 340 or 351 of the FW Act."
On Kandel's complaints about the dismissal process itself, the judge made clear those claims belonged elsewhere. "To the extent the applicant is aggrieved by the unfairness of his dismissal, by the respondent's failure to follow its own policies, or the procedure (or lack thereof) adopted by the respondent in respect of it, this Court has no power to give a remedy to the applicant under the FW Act," Judge Doust wrote.
The court clarified that procedural fairness complaints must be pursued through unfair dismissal applications at the Fair Work Commission, not through general protections claims in the Federal Court. Section 387, which Kandel had cited, sets out factors the Fair Work Commission considers when examining unfair dismissal applications, but does not give the Federal Court jurisdiction over such matters.
The application was dismissed on the grounds it had no reasonable prospects of success.
The ruling draws a clear legal line for employers navigating domestic violence issues in the workplace. While the Fair Work Act protects victims of domestic violence from discrimination, the court found that protection does not extend to those who are subjects of violence orders. The distinction may prove particularly relevant for employers in healthcare and aged care sectors, where staff have access to vulnerable populations and employers must balance individual employment rights against duty of care obligations.
