A new ruling puts your pre-employment process directly under the compliance spotlight
She signed a contract, passed every check, got the welcome email, and still had no legal protection when the offer was pulled.
That stark reality was confirmed by the Fair Work Commission on February 20, 2026, in a decision that should prompt HR leaders to look more carefully at what happens between a signed contract and Day 1.
Anastasia Perri accepted a role as Patient Access Officer with Oral Health Victoria (OHV), signing an employment contract on October 31, 2025. Her start date was set for December 1, 2025. The contract was conditional on standard pre-employment screening - a police check, immunisation records, two references, and work rights verification. Everything came back clean.
On November 27, 2025, OHV's Operations Manager sent Perri a welcome email confirming her 9am start, arrival instructions, proxy card arrangements, a hospital tour, and her rostered shifts. The manager signed off: "looking forward to you starting Monday."
She never did.
The following day, November 28, 2025, OHV withdrew the offer, citing a "due diligence process." By then, Perri had already resigned from her previous employer on November 3, 2025, having relied on the signed contract to do so.
Perri filed a general protections application with the Fair Work Commission, arguing she had been dismissed. OHV objected, maintaining that no employment relationship had ever existed.
Deputy President O'Neill sided with OHV.
The Commission found that while a valid contract existed, an employment relationship had not yet begun. Perri had not performed any work, attended any training, or set foot in the workplace. The December 1, 2025 start date had simply not arrived. The ruling was direct: "there was a contract for future employment but there was no relationship of employment."
The decision drew on established authority holding that a contract of employment can exist before an employment relationship actually forms. Signing a contract and being employed are, in law, two different things. Perri's application was dismissed.
OHV did not, however, walk away entirely unscathed. Deputy President O'Neill noted that an employer who withdraws an offer for a proscribed reason may still face a separate claim under general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act. That avenue remains open for Perri.
The case exposes a vulnerability that sits quietly inside most recruitment processes. The window between a signed contract and Day 1 is legally distinct territory: candidates hold a binding contract but not yet an employment relationship, placing standard dismissal protections out of reach.
It raises practical questions that HR teams should be examining now. Is due diligence being completed before a contract is signed, not after? Are pre-employment conditions properly sequenced in offer documentation? And if an offer must be withdrawn post-signing, is there a clear, defensible, and lawful reason on record?
The Perri decision is a useful checkpoint. A signed contract, clean screening results, and a warm welcome email are not the finish line. For HR leaders, the process is not closed until the employee actually walks through the door.
