A few extra sentences in one email could have saved months of legal proceedings
A simple question about a last day of work sparked months of legal wrangling over whether an unfair dismissal claim was filed on time.
The Fair Work Commission on February 6, 2026, dismissed an employee's unfair dismissal application after finding it was lodged 21 days too late. The dispute centered on a seemingly straightforward issue: when did the dismissal actually take effect?
Xiaoping Zhou had worked for Golden Sun Australia Pty Ltd for several years. On August 20, 2025, her manager Li Xu informed her at a meeting that her position was redundant due to declining business and rising costs.
That afternoon at 4:12pm, Zhou received an email confirming the news. The message stated her position could no longer be retained and that all entitlements would be settled according to government regulations.
The next morning, Zhou wrote back. She acknowledged the business was slow and understood workers needed to be reduced. But she asked for clarity: "Yesterday you said I have 3 weeks with pay to look for another job then finish. Can you tell me when is my last day?"
Xu replied on August 21, 2025, at 2:13pm with payment details covering three weeks' wages plus four days. The employer considered August 20 the last day of employment.
Zhou interpreted things differently. She believed her employment continued through a three-week notice period ending September 10, 2025. The company paid her in weekly installments on September 4, September 11, and made a final payment on September 17. She performed no work after August 20.
When Zhou filed her unfair dismissal application on October 1, 2025, the timing question became critical. The Fair Work Act requires such applications within 21 days after dismissal takes effect. If August 20 was the dismissal date, the deadline was September 10. If September 10 was correct, she filed on time.
Deputy President Cross examined the email trail and found the answer clear. Zhou had received explicit notice on August 20. More importantly, when she asked about her last day, the employer specifically identified August 20, 2025.
The Commission rejected Zhou's claim that she remained on call during the notice period. That argument conflicted with her own email stating she would "have 3 weeks with pay to look for another job then finish." It also contradicted evidence that she told management she would not attend work after August 20.
Zhou also suggested that receiving notice payments over several weeks meant the dismissal continued until the final payment. The Commission disagreed, citing previous decisions establishing that failing to pay notice properly makes the termination unlawful but "does not invalidate the termination of the employment."
With the dismissal effective August 20, 2025, the September 10 deadline passed before Zhou filed on October 1. She needed exceptional circumstances to extend the filing period but offered no evidence supporting that threshold.
The Commission found no exceptional circumstances and dismissed the application.
The employer won, but not without cost. Director Li Xu told the Commission the delay caused real problems for the small business: time and expense responding to proceedings, disruption during financial difficulty, and ongoing stress and uncertainty.
For HR teams, the case offers a clear lesson. Termination letters should state the exact dismissal date explicitly. Explain whether notice will be worked or paid in lieu. Confirm these details in writing even when they seem obvious. A few extra sentences in that August 20 email might have prevented months of legal proceedings entirely.
