A Brisbane worker who missed the statutory 21-day deadline for a Fair Work general protections claim by just four seconds has had his case thrown out by the Fair Work Commission. The worker argued that a tax invoice from the Commission proved that he paid on time. He had blamed the Commission’s “post-payment system processing” for the delay. However, the Commission rejected this. It found that the Fair Work claim was completed “in a rush” and that waiting until the final seconds to file demonstrated a “lack of diligence.”
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work general protections case Khan Tim So v Greek Orthodox Community Of St George Brisbane [2026]. Later, we look at the similar case of a worker whose claim was dismissed after being received just 16 seconds late. The Commission only grants an extension of time to lodge a Fair Work claim in exceptional circumstances. These two cases go to show that even being seconds late can end your chances of holding your employer to account.
Khan Tim So started working for the Greek Orthodox Community of St. George Brisbane in 2025. At the time of his termination of employment on 7 October 2025, he was still within his probationary period. Greek Orthodox Community justified the dismissal to the Fair Work Commission based on Mr. So’s “ongoing pattern of lateness.” It also argued that Mr. So had consistently failed to “complete tasks in a timely manner.”
During a meeting with Greek Orthodox Community on 7 October 2025, Mr. So did not accept these reasons and verbally challenged them. However, the employer’s representative told him that the decision was “final” and that there would not be further discussion. Mr. So subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim, arguing to the Commission that he had experienced adverse action and an unlawful termination. He alleged that he had been targeted for “raising issues with compliance” regarding his employer’s NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) code of conduct. He also claimed he experienced adverse action in response to his challenging the directions given to him.
Under the Fair Work Act 2009, Mr. So was required to lodge his Fair Work general protections claim within 21 of the date of his termination of employment. This meant his claim was due by 23:59:59 on 28 October 2025. He used the Fair Work Commission’s MyFWC online service to file his claim. However, the system recorded the lodgement at 00:00:04 on 29 October 2025, which was exactly four seconds past the deadline. Due to this, Greek Orthodox Community raised a jurisdictional objection arguing that Mr. So’s Fair Work general protections claim was lodged late and should therefore be dismissed.
In his defence, Mr. So argued to the Commission that he took “all required steps” to lodge the claim before the deadline. He pointed to a tax invoice sent by the Commission which recorded the payment date for his claim as 28 October 2025. Mr. So submitted that the four-second delay reflected “post-payment system processing or confirmation activity.” He argued that the time 00:00:04 was not when the payment was made or the claim was substantively lodged. Mr. So argued to the Commission that such a “minor system-generated delay” should not be used to block his access to justice.
The Fair Work Commission considered the jurisdictional objection to Mr. So’s Fair Work general protections claim in February 2026. It sought internal clarification about why the tax invoice showed a different date to the lodgement timestamp. The investigation revealed a system glitch: the Commission’s invoices were being recorded in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which is 10 hours behind Brisbane time. While it was 28 October 2025 in UTC, it was already 29 October 2025 in local Queensland time. The Commission noted that the issue had since been corrected so that tax invoices are recorded in local Queensland time.
The Commission clarified that under its own rules, a claim is not “lodged” just because a worker clicks “submit.” It is only considered lodged when it is “received electronically” by the Commission and is “capable of being retrieved.” The Commission found that Mr. So’s claim was clearly late and turned to whether there were “exceptional circumstances” to allow an extension of time.
The Fair Work Commission was not convinced by Mr. So’s reasons for the late lodgement. It found that he had sought advice within 48 hours of being dismissed and therefore knew about the 21-day lodgement deadline. The Commission said that waiting until the “very last second” to lodge his Fair Work claim demonstrated a lack of diligence on Mr. So’s part. It further noted that his claim appeared to have been completed “in a rush,” as parts of the form were incomplete and simply stated “to be discussed further.”
Regarding the four-second delay, the Commission ruled that it was not allowed to grant extensions simply because a lodgement was “close enough.” It said that Mr. So’s argument that system processing time had contributed to the lateness did not make sense. The Commission noted that there was no evidence of any technical failures. It made a point of saying that it is “reasonable” to expect that applicants make the effort to ensure their claims are lodged in time. With no exceptional circumstances found, the Commission ruled that Mr. So’s Fair Work general protections claim be dismissed.
Another recent Fair Work general protections claim that was lodged late by mere seconds is Eleanor McPhillips v Macquarie Bank Limited [2026]. Queensland-based Eleanor McPhillips started working for Macquarie Bank in May 2023 as a social media manager. She faced termination of employment on 30 October 2025 when her role was made redundant as part of a broader restructure. Macquarie Bank claimed the redundancy was genuine, noting that another employee in a similar role was also terminated and their duties absorbed elsewhere. However, Ms. McPhillips disagreed.
She lodged a Fair Work general protections claim alleging that her dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. She also accused Macquarie Bank of taking adverse action, specifically due to her exercising of workplace rights. The period following her termination of employment was marked by significant personal hardship. Ms. McPhillips told the Fair Work Commission that her treatment by her employer led to her seeking “psychiatric intervention” and an increase in medication.
Simultaneously, she was facing housing instability, having to move out of her father’s home and arrange alternative accommodation in a difficult rental market. As the primary caregiver of two children, she argued these issues materially impaired her ability to prioritise complex administrative tasks.
The statutory 21-day period for Ms. McPhillips to file her Fair Work general protections claim expired at midnight on 20 November 2025. On that final evening, she attempted to transfer her prepared arguments from a Word document into the Commission’s online portal. However, she discovered “strict character limits” that necessitated an urgent, last-minute redrafting of her entire claim.
Ms. McPhillips provided evidence that she was logged into the system at 11:59 pm, with the portal showing her application was “proceeding.” However, she then encountered a system error that redirected her to a dashboard. Her Fair Work claim was eventually recorded as lodged at 00:00:16 on 21 November 2025. Ms. McPhillips argued to the Commission that the delay was “short” and “unintentional,” caused by a combination of system errors and her impaired mental state.
In response to Ms. McPhillips’ Fair Work general protections claim, Macquarie Bank raised a jurisdictional objection. It contended the Fair Work claim was filed out of time and should be dismissed. The bank pointed out that Ms. McPhillips had been aware of the potential redundancy since 18 September 2025 and was not required to work during her notice period. It argued that she had a total of 63 days from the initial consultation until the filing deadline to prepare her Fair Work general protections claim.
Regarding the medical evidence, Macquarie Bank did not dispute that Ms. McPhillips was under the care of a psychiatrist. However, it argued that the evidence did not demonstrate total incapacity. The bank submitted that if she was capable of submitting her Fair Work Claim 16 seconds after the deadline, there was no reason she could not have done so within the 21-day window. Macquarie Bank maintained that leaving the filing to the last minute was “a risk borne by” Ms. McPhillips.
Macquarie Bank’s jurisdictional objection to Ms. McPhillips’ Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in February 2026. It noted that the delay in her lodgement was incredibly short. However, the Commission said that the “high bar” required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances is not reduced simply because a delay is measured in seconds. The Commission referenced several Fair work cases where delays of only one or two minutes resulted in dismissal. This reinforced that technical difficulties encountered at the last minute are rarely considered “exceptional.”
The Commission accepted that Ms. McPhillips faced genuine challenges, including mental health issues and housing stress. However, it said that these did not equate to a complete incapacity to lodge her Fair Work claim earlier in the three-week period. The Commission said that claims filed at the last minute “bear the risk of being lodged out of time.”
The Fair Work Commission also found that Ms. McPhillips had not taken sufficient action to dispute her termination of employment after it had taken effect. While she had engaged in the redundancy consultation process, her only correspondence after 30 October 2025 was an email regarding payslips and notice pay. The Commission noted that this led Macquarie Bank to believe that the matter had concluded.
Ultimately, the Commission ruled that the reasons Ms. McPhillips provided for her lodgement delay, including technical errors, character limits and personal stress, were not “out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special.” It highlighted that the 21-day statutory limit for Fair Work claims must be applied with uniformity to ensure fairness to all parties. With no exceptional circumstances found, the Commission ruled that an extension of time was not warranted. Ms. McPhillips’ Fair Work general protections claim was therefore dismissed.
Read more: Be Careful Who You Choose to File Your Unfair Dismissal Claim
As these cases show, the Fair Work Commission has a “high bar” for accepting late claims. The 21-day deadline applies to both Fair Work general protections claims involving dismissal, as well as unfair dismissal claims.
At Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives, we specialise in helping employees navigate the complexities of unfair dismissal or general protections claims. So if you need assistance with your claim and representation to ensure you get the compensation you deserve, act now.
Contact us today on 1800 333 666 for your free and confidential initial consultation. We offer a no win, no fee arrangement and can let you know how to proceed with your case to maximise success.
