Peymani v Posh N Polished Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 560

Peymani v Posh N Polished Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 560 is a Federal Court decision about an employee's application for more time to bring a general protections court claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Court was not deciding the whole employment dispute. It was deciding whether the employee should be allowed to proceed after the usual filing period had expired.

The Court granted the extension only in part. Time was extended for claims under ss 340 and 344, but not for the balance of the claims under ss 343 and 351. The proceeding was then referred to mediation. For business owners, the case is a practical example of how a disputed resignation or dismissal can expand into several forums at once, and how a court may separate stronger claims from weaker ones at an early procedural stage.

The employment relationship was between Ms Peymani and Posh N Polished Pty Ltd, a salon business. Ms Peymani worked as a salon manager and cosmetic tattooist under a written employment agreement. The extract records a salary plus superannuation and a commission entitlement for specified treatments.

The immediate trigger for the dispute was an email sent on 14 May 2025. In that email, Ms Peymani raised concerns about the salon's structure, professionalism and operations. She proposed two possible future arrangements with different remuneration, and said that if neither option was acceptable she was prepared to submit four weeks' notice of resignation and assist with transition. That wording became central to the later dispute because it could be read in more than one way.

Ms Peymani's position, as recorded by the Court, was that the email was a business proposal aimed at improving the business and reaching a fair and transparent outcome. She said she was then subjected to verbal abuse, threats and pressure to resign or accept reduced commission. She said she withdrew the proposal and agreed to continue under her existing contract and salary. The Court noted that there was a dispute about the nature, tone and meaning of the later correspondence between the parties.

The conflict then escalated beyond the original proposal. Ms Peymani alleged that the business advertised her role online, demoted her from manager to a basic cosmetic technician, altered her access to company systems so she could not manage bookings, staff and client records, and removed her insurance and training certificates from display areas. She also alleged pressure to accept further commission reductions contrary to her employment agreement.

On 2 June 2025, according to the extract, she declined to amend a commission invoice to reflect a reduced commission as directed because she intended to continue working under her existing contract and no new agreement had been reached. She said she was then asked not to return to the premises, was not given a termination letter, and was constructively dismissed.

This was not a single-forum dispute. The judgment shows that the breakdown in the employment relationship quickly spread into multiple proceedings.

First, on 19 August 2025, Ms Peymani commenced a VCAT application under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic). She alleged that a debt was owing for unpaid commission and reimbursement for stock she said she had purchased on behalf of the business. The amount identified in the extract was $1,905.

Secondly, the respondent commenced County Court proceedings against Ms Peymani. The extract says those proceedings alleged that she had established a competing business near the respondent's business, solicited clients, and used confidential information and marketing materials created at the salon. Ms Peymani said she was served with those documents on 17 September 2025 and that the service caused significant distress.

Thirdly, Ms Peymani filed a general protections dismissal application in the Fair Work Commission under s 365 of the Fair Work Act. A preliminary issue there was whether she had been dismissed at all. The Commission considered the 14 May email and the later text messages and discussions. The extract records the way the parties put their positions in that forum. The employer said the resignation had been accepted and that there had been discussion of a four-week exit period ending around mid-June. Ms Peymani said the email was not a resignation but a business proposal and that nothing had been agreed.

The Commission concluded that it did not need to decide whether the 14 May email itself, or the later discussions, amounted to a resignation or whether any resignation was voluntary or forced. That was because the employer had decided to bring forward the date at which the employment would have ended to 2 June 2025, and that was enough for the Commission to conclude there had been a dismissal. The matter was then conferenced, but no resolution was reached. After that process, Ms Peymani sought to proceed in the Federal Court and needed an extension of time under s 370.

For businesses, the procedural history matters because it shows how one workplace dispute can generate overlapping factual records in a tribunal, a commission and different courts. Once that happens, consistency becomes critical. Statements made in one forum may later be compared with statements made in another.

The legal issue before Bennett J was not whether the employee would ultimately win the case. The issue was whether the Court should extend time under s 370 of the Fair Work Act so that a general protections court application could be commenced after the ordinary deadline.

The catchwords show the Court considered three broad matters: the explanation for delay, the extent of prejudice, and whether an extension was appropriate having regard to the substantive merits of the proposed claims. That is important for employers because an extension application is not just a calendar exercise. A court may also look at whether the proposed claims appear arguable.

The extract also makes clear that the Court did not treat all pleaded claims the same way. The proposed case included claims under ss 340, 343, 344 and 351 of the Fair Work Act. The Court allowed the extension for the claims under ss 340 and 344, but not for the balance of the claims under ss 343 and 351.

On the available text, the detailed reasoning for drawing that line is not fully visible because the published extract is truncated. What can be said confidently is that the Court considered the apparent merits of the different claims and reached a split result. That is a practical point in itself. In employment litigation, a court may permit some allegations to proceed while stopping others at an early stage.

Bennett J granted the application in part. The orders state that, pursuant to s 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), time was extended until 20 December 2025 for the commencement of a court application for the claims made under ss 340 and 344.

The Court did not allow the extension for the balance of the claims under ss 343 and 351. Costs of the extension application were reserved. The proceeding was referred to a Registrar of the Federal Court to conduct a half-day mediation on a date not before 8 May 2026 and to make any other procedural orders needed if the matter did not resolve.

That outcome tells business readers two things. First, the employee was not shut out entirely by the missed deadline. Secondly, the Court was prepared to narrow the case by allowing only some claims to continue. The judgment therefore sits at the procedural stage between the Fair Work Commission process and any later determination of liability.

The commercial story here is not unusual. A senior employee raises concerns and proposes a new arrangement. The employer reads the communication differently. The parties continue talking, but their conduct starts to move in conflicting directions. Access changes, commission is disputed, the role is advertised, and the employee is told not to return. By then, the legal character of the exit is no longer obvious.

For employers, the first lesson is to deal with ambiguity immediately. If an employee says they are prepared to resign if certain conditions are not met, that is not necessarily the same as an immediate resignation. If the business wants to treat it as a resignation, it should say so clearly and record the basis. If the business rejects the proposal but wants the employment to continue, that should also be stated clearly.

The second lesson is that conduct after the disputed communication may matter as much as the communication itself. In this case, the extract refers to advertising the role, changing system access, discussing notice periods, reducing commission and telling the employee not to return. Those are the kinds of steps that can later be relied on as evidence of dismissal, adverse action, coercion or other alleged contraventions.

The third lesson is procedural. Employers should not assume that a missed deadline ends the matter. If the employee has an explanation for delay and at least some claims appear arguable, the Court may still extend time. The better protection is a lawful process, clear written communications and records that match the business's actual position.

The fourth lesson is consistency across forums. Here, the dispute touched VCAT, the Fair Work Commission, the County Court and the Federal Court. Once a matter spreads like that, inconsistent explanations can become damaging. Businesses should make sure that the factual account they give in one forum does not undermine the account they give in another.

The extract highlights several categories of evidence that often become central in workplace disputes.

First, there was the written employment agreement. That mattered because it set out the salary and commission structure against which later disputes about reduced commission were measured.

Secondly, there was the 14 May email. That document was important because it sat at the centre of the disagreement about whether Ms Peymani was proposing a new arrangement, foreshadowing resignation, or actually resigning.

Thirdly, there were the later text messages and meetings. The Fair Work Commission material quoted in the judgment shows that both sides relied on those exchanges to support their version of events.

Fourthly, there was conduct rather than just documents. The extract refers to advertising the role, changing access to systems, removing certificates from display areas, directing amendment of a commission invoice, and asking the employee not to return to the premises. In a contested exit, those practical steps can be as significant as formal letters.

Finally, there were the documents filed in other proceedings, including the VCAT claim and the County Court proceeding. Once multiple proceedings exist, each filing can become part of the broader factual picture.

Can an employer rely on the employee missing the deadline? Not safely. This case shows that the Court can extend time, and may do so for some claims even if not for all of them.

Does an employee have to receive a formal termination letter for there to be a dismissal issue? Not necessarily. The extract records that the employee said she was not given a termination letter, but the Fair Work Commission still treated the matter as involving a dismissal because the employer had brought forward the end of employment to 2 June 2025.

Is a proposal to resign the same as a resignation? Not always. That was part of the factual dispute here. Employers should avoid assumptions and confirm the position in writing.

What if the business thinks the employee is acting against its interests during the notice period? The business should still act carefully, document the basis for any decision, and make sure any change to duties, access or attendance is lawful and clearly communicated.

Does this case mean the employee will succeed on the surviving claims? No. The judgment only shows that the Court allowed extra time for some claims to be brought. It does not determine the final merits of those claims.

This page is based on the Federal Court of Australia judgment record for Peymani v Posh N Polished Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 560, judgment of Bennett J dated 6 May 2026. The available text includes the orders, catchwords and part of the reasons.

The available reasons are truncated. Because of that, this page states only what can be supported confidently from the published extract, especially about the distinction between the claims that were allowed to proceed and those that were not.