1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.365—General protections Ms Ashleigh Llewellyn v Sexyland Australia Pty Ltd (C2025/8775) DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL ADELAIDE, 17 APRIL 2026 Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – s.725 enlivened – application dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a). [1] On 2 September 2025, Ms Ashleigh Llewellyn made a general protections involving dismissal application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). On 27 August 2025, Ms Llewellyn made an unfair dismissal application against Sexyland Australia Pty Ltd under s.394 of the Act (U2025/13914). [2] This decision deals with whether the general protections involving dismissal application can proceed, because section 725 of the Act relevantly prevents an applicant from bringing a general protections application where they have made an unfair dismissal application that has not been withdrawn or failed on specified grounds.1 [3] On 24 October 2025, Ms Llewellyn was advised of the issue concerning s.725 and that my provisional view was that that the general protections application, being the second application made, was not a valid application because it had not been made in accordance with the Act. Ms Llewellyn was asked to advise whether she claimed that her general protections application could continue, or if she wanted to discontinue it. To date, no response has been received from Ms Llewellyn. Consideration [4] Whilst general protections claims involving dismissal and unfair dismissal claims may be available options, an applicant must choose which application to make. The Full Bench in Ioannou v Northern Belting Services Pty Ltd2 makes it clear that when an applicant lodges an application of one type and then decides that a different type of application is more appropriate, the appropriate action is to withdraw the first application and file the preferred type of application. [5] As at 2 September 2025 when the general protections application was made, Ms Llewellyn’s unfair dismissal application had not been withdrawn, failed for want of jurisdiction, or failed because the Commission found the dismissal to be a genuine redundancy. Ms [2026] FWC 1302 DECISION [2026] FWC 1302 2 Llewellyn was, therefore, prevented by section 725 from making a general protections involving dismissal application. [6] I am satisfied that the general protections application (C2025/8775) was not made in accordance with s.725 of the Act and that it is appropriate that I exercise the power in s.587(1)(a) of the Act to dismiss it. I make the following order: 1. The application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Ashleigh Llewellyn on 2 September 2025 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR798651> 1 Failed for want of jurisdiction or because the Commission was satisfied that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy: s.729(1)(b). 2 [2014] FWCFB 6660.