Secondary Business Preparations While Employed: Does Registering a Competing Company and Trial Marketing Justify Summary Dismissal Under the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case [2025] FWC 872 (U2025/159), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Fair Work Commission

Presiding Judge: Commissioner Redford

Cause of Action: Application for unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Judgment Date: 2 April 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Unfair dismissal

Keyword 3: Summary dismissal

Keyword 4: Small Business Fair Dismissal Code

Keyword 5: Serious misconduct

Keyword 6: Employee side business and competition

Background

The Applicant was a qualified tradesperson employed by the Respondent, a small business employer. Without any documented performance issues, the employment relationship abruptly collapsed after the Respondent discovered the Applicant had taken steps to establish a new business that appeared similar to the Respondent’s operations. Those steps included registering a company, creating a website, and posting content on a social media account.

The Respondent viewed these steps as disloyal, competitive, and potentially harmful to the business’s viability, and acted swiftly. The Applicant insisted the steps were only preparatory, that no work had been performed for the new business during employment, and that some promotional activity was merely a short trial.

This case is a practical study in how Australian workplace law distinguishes between preparing to compete and actually competing, and how the fairness of a dismissal can turn on process, proof, and proportionality.

Core Disputes and Claims

Core legal focus: Whether the Respondent’s summary dismissal was fair and lawful in the sense required by the unfair dismissal regime, including whether it was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code and whether there was a valid reason related to conduct.

Applicant’s claim/relief sought: A remedy for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ultimately seeking compensation rather than reinstatement.

Respondent’s position: The dismissal was justified as summary dismissal for serious misconduct, and was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code because the Respondent believed on reasonable grounds that the Applicant was operating a competing business and misusing employer resources.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began as a straightforward employment arrangement: the Applicant worked full-time for the Respondent for more than three years. There was no evidence of performance management, warnings, or a pattern of conflict. The dispute did not arise from poor work, but from trust.

Over time, the Applicant formed an intention to “eventually” establish an independent business. That intention, by itself, is not unusual in skilled trades. The legal risk arises when the intention becomes action while still employed, especially where the new venture appears to overlap with the employer’s services.

Key steps taken before termination included:

1. Registering a new company with ASIC.
2. Creating social media content connected with the new venture.
3. Engaging a website designer and preparing a professional-looking website presence.

The “decisive moment” was not a gradual escalation. The Respondent received information suggesting the Applicant had begun promoting a competing business. The Respondent reacted quickly, calling the Applicant to a meeting and handing over a pre-prepared termination letter. The meeting was heated, short on detail, and (critically) not structured as a genuine opportunity for the Applicant to respond to allegations before the decision was made.

The case therefore became about two things at once:

1. What the Applicant actually did (facts and proof).
2. How the Respondent handled the dismissal (procedure and fairness).

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Company registration evidence: The Applicant accepted registering the company and explained it was for a future plan, not for conducting work during employment.

2. Social media explanation: The Applicant accepted creating the account and making a small number of posts during a short time window. The Applicant’s case was that it was a trial of social media features, not an operational marketing campaign.

3. Website timing evidence: The Applicant asserted the website was not live during employment. An email from a website designer supported a timeline consistent with development commencing around early December, with payment and build steps not completed at that time.

4. No trading proof: The Applicant asserted there was no work performed, no customers served, and no actual business operated before termination.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Termination letter: The Respondent relied on a document alleging serious misconduct and referencing contractual clauses said to be breached, including confidentiality and restraint concepts.

2. Social media posts: The Respondent tendered screenshots of multiple posts, including:

   • A logo and service list post suggesting business services.
   • A post showing equipment and claiming it was part of “our newest addition to the fleet”.
   • A post involving photographs of machinery, argued to be connected with the employer’s equipment.
   • A CCTV inspection image of a pipe condition taken while the Applicant was at work.
3. Website discovery claim: The Respondent asserted the website existed and was discovered earlier than the Applicant admitted, implying the business was already being promoted to the public.

4. Supplier contact allegations: The Respondent asserted the Applicant contacted suppliers and intended to solicit clients and suppliers, but the supporting information was largely hearsay and not directly proven by firsthand witnesses.

Core Dispute Points

1. Was the Applicant actually operating a competing business during employment, or merely preparing to do so?

2. Was the website live and publicly accessible before termination, or only developed for future launch?

3. Did the social media activity amount to advertising and solicitation, or a limited personal trial with no real-world commercial effect?

4. Was there reliable evidence of solicitation of clients/suppliers, or only suspicion and hearsay?

5. Did the Respondent conduct a reasonable investigation and provide procedural fairness before summary dismissal?

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Even where parties are self-represented, affidavit-style evidence (and written witness statements) often becomes the battleground where credibility is built or destroyed. This case demonstrates three recurring strategic patterns:

1. Narrative control through specificity: Evidence that pins down dates, timelines, and sequences tends to be more persuasive. The Applicant’s admissions about registration and social posts were relatively direct, which reduced the appearance of evasiveness.

2. The danger of conclusory accusations: The Respondent’s narrative relied heavily on the conclusion that “a competing business was being conducted”. The Commission’s reasoning shows that asserting competition is not the same as proving operational conduct. Allegations about solicitation, in particular, require reliable firsthand evidence if they are to carry weight.

3. Credibility is not only about honesty, but about coherence: The Commission did not find either witness broadly dishonest. Instead, it treated contradictions by asking what evidence best explained the objective record. The absence of mention of the website in the termination letter became a practical credibility marker: if the website was truly known and central, why was it not pleaded in the most important employer document?

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions

In unfair dismissal matters, the Commission’s procedural approach typically aims to:

• Identify the alleged valid reason with precision.
• Separate suspicion from proof.
• Test whether the employer’s belief was genuinely held and also objectively reasonable.
• Examine whether the employee was given a real chance to respond before the decision crystallised.

Here, that procedural lens exposed a common small business error: acting decisively before establishing a reliable evidentiary foundation, then attempting to justify the decision after the fact.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final determination, the matter proceeded through typical unfair dismissal case management steps:

• Listing for hearing.
• Consideration of representation permission for the Respondent.
• Filing and exchange of evidence (including screenshots and email material).
• Hearing with oral evidence from the Applicant and the Respondent’s managing director.
• Jurisdictional objection concerning the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code was raised and determined.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing unfolded as a contest between two competing stories.

The Respondent’s story: the Applicant was secretly building a direct competitor, using work time and employer-connected materials, and was positioning to take business relationships.

The Applicant’s story: the business steps were future-facing; the social media activity was short-lived; the website was not live; and no trading occurred.

Cross-examination pressure points included:

• Timing: when exactly the website could have been visible.
• Meaning: whether posts that “look like advertising” must legally be treated as advertising.
• Use of work materials: whether a CCTV image and machinery photographs amount to misuse of confidential information or intellectual property.
• Inference stacking: whether supplier contact allegations could properly support a conclusion of solicitation without direct evidence.

The Commission’s assessment shows a disciplined unwillingness to “fill evidentiary gaps” with suspicion, even where the suspicion might feel commercially understandable.

Core Evidence Confrontation

Two pieces of evidence became determinative in opposite directions:

1. The Instagram posts: On their face, they suggested promotion of a business offering services similar to the Respondent’s. But the Commission looked beyond surface appearance to practical reality: a full-time employee cannot easily perform competing jobs while working full-time, and the short burst of activity supported a “trial” narrative more than a sustained trading operation.

2. The website: The Respondent claimed it existed and was discovered before termination. The Applicant insisted it was not live. The Commission treated the absence of the website from the termination letter, and the supporting email timeline about web development, as powerful indicators that the website likely was not live at the critical time.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The Commission’s logic can be summarised as a chain:

• Summary dismissal demands a belief held on reasonable grounds.
• Reasonable grounds usually require reasonable investigation.
• Reasonable investigation often requires putting allegations to the employee and weighing the explanation.
• Here, the decision to terminate was made before genuine engagement occurred.

Key judicial statement (determinative):

“At the point at which the allegations were put to [the Applicant], [the Respondent] had already decided to terminate his employment.”

This was determinative because it framed the dismissal as a decision first, process second. Under Australian unfair dismissal principles, that sequence commonly undermines fairness, because it deprives the employee of the chance to influence the outcome.

A second key judicial statement (on the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code):

“This was a genuinely held belief, but not reasonable.”

That statement matters because the Code does not require the employer to be correct, but it does require reasonable grounds. The Commission drew a sharp line between sincere suspicion and evidentially supported belief.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Commission determined that:

• The jurisdictional objection relying on the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code did not succeed because the dismissal was not consistent with the Code.
• The Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal.
• The dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable under the statutory criteria.
• Reinstatement was inappropriate in circumstances including the Applicant not seeking it and the relationship breakdown.
• Compensation was ordered, calculated on an anticipated remaining employment period, adjusted for post-dismissal earnings, and finalised as a gross figure plus superannuation payable within a defined timeframe.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case is a classic example of a legal reality that often surprises both employers and employees: the fairness of a dismissal is not determined only by how bad the alleged conduct appears, but by whether the allegation can be proven and whether the process was fair.

The jurisprudential value lies in four practical lessons:

1. Small business does not mean “small obligations”. The Code provides a pathway to fair summary dismissal, but it still demands reasonableness grounded in facts.

2. Preparing to compete is not always the same as competing. Registering a company and building a website are preparatory acts; they become legally dangerous when they cross into trading, solicitation, misuse of time, or misuse of confidential information.

3. Evidence hierarchy matters. Direct evidence beats hearsay. Screenshots and documents can beat recollections. The termination letter itself can expose what the employer actually knew at the time.

4. A belief can be honest and still fail the legal test. The Commission’s focus on “reasonable grounds” is a safeguard against impulsive, assumption-driven summary dismissal.

Judgment Points

1. The Code test is two-stage: genuine belief plus reasonable grounds. The Respondent cleared the first hurdle but failed the second. That failure was not technical; it reflected the Commission’s view that a reasonable employer would have investigated properly and sought an explanation before making an irreversible decision.

2. The Commission treated the website timing dispute as a credibility and logic question, not merely a factual argument. The absence of the website from the termination letter strongly suggested it was not part of the employer’s actual pre-dismissal knowledge base.

3. The Commission refused to elevate supplier contact allegations without direct witnesses. This is a major practical warning: where an employer alleges solicitation, the evidentiary burden is usually best met by firsthand testimony from those contacted, not third-hand reports.

4. Contract clauses do not automatically supply a valid reason. A clause referencing confidentiality or restraint does not prove breach; the employer still must prove facts that fall within the clause, and the clause must be relevant to the timing and conduct.

5. Misuse of employer material requires precision. The Commission was not satisfied that photographs of machinery or a CCTV image constituted confidential information or intellectual property in the contractual sense, especially where the definition did not naturally cover that content.

Legal Basis

The legal framework applied included:

• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 394 (unfair dismissal application)
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 396 (threshold matters)
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 382 (protection from unfair dismissal)
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 388 and the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (Code compliance)
• Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) reg 1.07 (serious misconduct concept)
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 387 (harsh, unjust or unreasonable factors)
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 392 (compensation considerations)

Comparable authorities referenced or applied in the reasoning included:

• Ryman v Thrash Pty Ltd [2015] FWCFB 5264 (approach to Code compliance and reasonable grounds)
• Pinawin t/a RoseVi.Hair.Face.Body v Domingo [2012] FWAFB 1359 (employer need not be correct, but belief must be on reasonable grounds)
• Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 (valid reason must be sound, defensible, well-founded)
• Crozier v Palazzo Corporation (1996) 98 IR 137 (opportunity to respond must be real and timely)
• RMIT v Asher (2010) 194 IR 1 (common-sense application of fairness requirements)
• Sprigg v Paul’s Licensed Festival Supermarket (1998) 88 IR 21 (compensation methodology)

Evidence Chain

Victory Point 1: The case was anchored by admissions, not denials.
The Applicant admitted registering the company and creating the social media account. Paradoxically, these admissions improved credibility because they showed the Applicant was not attempting to deny obvious facts. Once credibility stabilised, the Commission was more willing to accept the Applicant’s explanation about limited intention and timing.

Victory Point 2: The website dispute was resolved by inference from documentary structure.
The Commission treated the termination letter as a “snapshot” of what the Respondent believed at the time of dismissal. Because the website was not mentioned, the Commission inferred it was not known or not central at the time. This is a powerful evidentiary technique: the absence of an allegation in a contemporaneous document can be as important as its presence.

Victory Point 3: Hearsay did not carry the weight of serious misconduct.
The Respondent’s allegations about solicitation required dependable proof. Without direct witnesses, the Commission treated those allegations as unreliable. In unfair dismissal law, the seriousness of an allegation does not relax the need for reliable evidence; it increases the need for it.

Victory Point 4: Practical impossibility diluted the “operating business” claim.
The Commission considered the real-world constraint of full-time work. If an employee is working full-time, claims that they were simultaneously operating a competing business require stronger evidence of actual trading activity. The Commission found no customers, no jobs, and no trading proof.

Victory Point 5: Contract clause reliance failed because the conduct did not fit the definitions.
The Respondent attempted to frame images as confidential information or intellectual property. The Commission examined the contractual definition and concluded the alleged materials did not fall naturally within it. This is a reminder that legal labels must match the precise wording of the clause.

Victory Point 6: Procedural fairness failures were not “small business excusable”.
Even in a small business context, the Commission expected a genuine conversation and a reasonable investigation. The Respondent’s approach, including a pre-prepared termination letter and a meeting not conducive to response, undermined the claim of reasonableness.

Victory Point 7: The Commission separated moral outrage from legal sufficiency.
The Respondent’s anger was understandable from a business trust perspective, but legal sufficiency required proof and process. The Commission’s method was to ask: what did the Applicant do, what did the Respondent reasonably know at the time, and what steps were taken to verify before dismissal?

Victory Point 8: Remedy was calculated with disciplined realism.
Compensation was assessed based on an anticipated remaining employment period, considering the Applicant’s likely departure timeline. This shows how remedy in unfair dismissal is not punitive; it is compensatory and predictive, grounded in evidence about what probably would have occurred.

Judicial Original Quotation

Key ratio statement on reasonableness under the Code:

“A proper investigation involving sensible conversation… would have revealed [the Applicant] was not conducting a business.”

This was determinative because it states the missing step that would have transformed suspicion into a reasonable belief. The Commission did not demand an elaborate investigation, only a sensible one.

Key ratio statement on valid reason:

“There is no evidence… [the Applicant] had begun operating his business prior to the termination.”

This mattered because a valid reason related to conduct requires the Commission to be satisfied the conduct occurred and justified dismissal. Suspicion without proof does not meet that standard.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Respondent’s failure was not a single mistake; it was a cluster of avoidable decision points:

1. The Respondent escalated to summary dismissal without securing a solid evidentiary platform. Where the allegation is serious, the evidence must be correspondingly reliable.

2. The Respondent relied on hearsay to support solicitation narratives. In practice, if solicitation is alleged, the most persuasive evidence is testimony from the clients or suppliers contacted, supported by messages, emails, call logs, or contemporaneous notes.

3. The Respondent failed to hold a genuinely investigative meeting. Providing a termination letter early and conducting a confrontational discussion was inconsistent with a process where an explanation might influence the outcome.

4. The Respondent’s contractual breach framing lacked fit. Referencing multiple clauses without clearly explaining how each clause was breached can look like post-hoc justification rather than genuine causal reasoning.

5. The Respondent did not clearly separate what was known before dismissal from what was discovered after dismissal. The Commission’s focus on timing meant later discoveries could not easily justify an earlier decision.

Implications

1. If you are an employee, preparation is not a free-for-all. Registering a future venture may be lawful, but using work time, employer resources, or content connected with clients tends to create relatively high risk.

2. If you are an employer, do not let fear replace proof. A belief may be sincere, but the legal question is whether it is reasonably grounded. A short, calm, documented conversation can prevent a costly unfair dismissal outcome.

3. Social media can be evidence, but context controls meaning. Posts that look promotional can still be explained. Courts and tribunals will ask: what was the real-world effect, and what was actually happening behind the screen?

4. Hearsay is a fragile foundation for serious misconduct. If the allegation is solicitation, obtain direct evidence. Otherwise, the allegation tends to collapse under scrutiny.

5. Process is not bureaucracy; it is legal protection. For both sides, the fairness of procedure often decides the case as much as the facts.

Q&A Session

1. If an employee registers a company while employed, does that automatically justify dismissal?
   Not automatically. Registration can be a preparatory act. The legal risk rises if the employee starts trading, soliciting customers, diverting work, using employer time or resources, or breaching confidentiality obligations.

2. Are social media posts enough to prove a competing business is being operated?
   They can be powerful, but they are rarely enough by themselves. Decision-makers usually look for corroboration such as customers, invoices, job records, communications, or evidence of actual trading activity. Context, timing, and duration matter.

3. What should a small business employer do before summary dismissal for suspected competition?
   A sensible investigation: identify allegations clearly, put them to the employee, allow a response, check objective facts (timelines, access logs, communications), and document reasons. This often strengthens the “reasonable grounds” requirement under the Code.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Employment Conduct Dispute – Alleged competing business preparations and alleged misuse of employer-related material

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment (unfair dismissal decision with compensation order)

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Category selected: ③ Employment and Workplace Disputes (Industrial Relations Law)

Core Test (Unfair Dismissal – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth))

Step 1: Coverage and eligibility threshold
You must consider whether the person is protected from unfair dismissal, including minimum employment period and either award/enterprise agreement coverage or earnings below the high income threshold. Risk tends to be higher where these threshold criteria are clearly satisfied, because the dispute proceeds to the merits rather than being dismissed at the gate.

Step 2: Identify the alleged valid reason
The reason must relate to capacity or conduct. It must be sound, defensible, and well-founded on an objective analysis of the facts. A mere belief, without proof the conduct occurred, tends to be determined as insufficient.

Step 3: Notification before decision
The employee should be told the reason in plain terms before the decision is made, not at the same time as dismissal. Where a termination letter is prepared in advance and handed over early, there is a relatively high risk the decision-maker will infer the outcome was pre-decided.

Step 4: Opportunity to respond
The employee should have a genuine chance to respond to the precise allegations. The opportunity must be real and capable of influencing the result. A rushed or confrontational meeting can undermine this element.

Step 5: Support person considerations
In discussions where dismissal is possible, refusal of a support person can weigh against fairness if the employee requests one and the refusal is unreasonable. The absence of a request may neutralise the factor.

Step 6: Warnings and performance management
If the dismissal is framed as conduct-based rather than performance-based, warnings about performance may be irrelevant. However, where employers attempt to rely on past concerns not clearly documented, risk tends to rise.

Step 7: Size and HR capacity
Small business status does not eliminate fairness requirements. The tribunal may consider size and HR resources, but it typically does not excuse the absence of basic procedural fairness.

Core Test (General Protections – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth))

Step 1: Identify adverse action
Termination, demotion, injury in employment, or other detriment.

Step 2: Identify the workplace right
Making a complaint, inquiry, taking leave, or participating in lawful industrial activity.

Step 3: Causation and reverse onus
The employer may need to prove the prohibited reason was not a substantial and operative factor. Where dismissal occurs immediately after a complaint, risk tends to be higher.

Core Test (Sham Contracting)

Step 1: Substance over label
The legal character depends on control, tools, risk, and whether the worker operates a genuine business.

Step 2: Multi-factor assessment
Working for multiple clients, ability to delegate, and bearing commercial risk tend to support contractor classification, but no single factor is determinative.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Even where statutory pathways are uncertain, parties may consider alternative doctrines or complementary claims. These are context-dependent and tend to involve relatively high risk if pursued without evidence.

Procedural Fairness
If the dispute concerns decision-making process rather than contract breach, procedural fairness concepts may be relevant in administrative decision contexts. In workplace settings, the closest analogue is statutory procedural fairness under unfair dismissal factors and the Code’s reasonable grounds concept.

Ancillary Claims: Reframing after an unfair dismissal loss
If an unfair dismissal claim fails on thresholds, a party may consider whether the circumstances engage general protections, particularly where dismissal follows an employee complaint or exercise of a workplace right. This route can be complex because it changes both the legal test and the evidentiary burdens.

Confidential Information and Misuse
If an employer has strong evidence of misuse of client lists, pricing, or trade secrets, equitable relief such as injunctions or restraining orders may be considered. However, a court tends to require clear identification of the confidential material, proof of misuse, and proof of threatened harm. Broad allegations without specificity tend to be rejected.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel
In employment disputes, estoppel sometimes arises where an employer made a clear promise about ongoing employment or a benefit, and the employee relied on it to their detriment. This tends to be difficult unless the promise is clear, reliance is substantial, and unconscionability is strongly supported by the facts.

Unjust Enrichment or Constructive Trust
These are uncommon in ordinary unfair dismissal settings, but may become relevant where there is a separate dispute about ownership of business assets, intellectual property created in employment, or diversion of business opportunities. Clear evidence is essential, and risk tends to be higher where the employment contract already regulates ownership.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds
– Unfair dismissal application must be lodged within the statutory timeframe after dismissal, otherwise there is a relatively high risk of being out of time.
– Minimum employment period must be satisfied, with different thresholds depending on whether the employer is a small business employer.
– Small business employers may rely on the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, but must comply with its reasonableness requirements.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial)
– Late filing may be excused in limited circumstances where there is a satisfactory explanation, but success tends to be uncertain.
– Even where summary dismissal is attempted, the Code still expects reasonable grounds. Where investigation is minimal, the employer’s reliance on the Code tends to fail.
– Where an employee’s conduct is suspicious but not proven, an employer may consider alternatives such as a stand-down investigation process or a show cause procedure rather than immediate termination.

Suggestion
Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the situation looks morally obvious. In workplace law, outcomes often hinge on evidence quality, timing, and the fairness of the process, rather than mere suspicion or business anger.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle
It is recommended to cite this case in submissions involving:
– The distinction between preparatory steps and actual operation of a competing business.
– The requirement for reasonable grounds under the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
– The importance of putting allegations to an employee before deciding summary dismissal.
– The evidentiary weakness of hearsay in proving solicitation allegations.

Citation Method
As Positive Support: When your matter involves an employer who acted on suspicion without a sensible investigation, citing this authority can strengthen the argument that the Code was not complied with and the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasise differences such as proven trading activity, clear evidence of solicitation, proven diversion of clients, or a documented investigation and genuine opportunity to respond.

Anonymisation Rule
Use procedural titles only: Applicant and Respondent.

---

Conclusion

This judgment shows that workplace trust disputes are not decided by instinct, but by proof and fairness. Preparing for a future business may be unwise without transparency, yet summary dismissal tends to be legally fragile where the employer cannot prove actual misconduct and cannot show a reasonable investigation.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Golden Sentence

When suspicion replaces evidence and process becomes an afterthought, the law tends to restore balance by insisting on proof, fairness, and reasoned decision-making.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Fair Work Commission ([2025] FWC 872), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.