Chelli Edri v The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor
Deputy President Butler
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Chelli Edri
Respondent: The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor
Ratio
The FWC lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant's general protections claim against the Public Trustee of Queensland because the First Respondent was not a national system employer, being a State of Queensland entity without referred powers, and the Second Respondent was a public sector employee. The applicant's application to amend to add Hudson Global Resources (her alleged actual employer) was dismissed for want of supporting materials, and by the time of the substantive hearing, the claim was out of time under s.366.
Outcome
Against applicant
dismissed_jurisdiction
Authority signal
Not yet cited by other cases
Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority,
green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data,
amber = caution, red = treated negatively.
Key facts · 9
- Applicant Ms Chelli Edri filed application for general protections dispute involving dismissal on 11 September 2025
- Applicant named Public Trustee of Queensland (First Respondent) and a natural person (Second Respondent)
- Respondents objected that applicant was not an employee and was not dismissed, and that First Respondent was not a national system employer
- On 3 November 2025, applicant sought leave to amend to add Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd as employer
- Applicant's effective dismissal date was 1 September 2025, placing her out of time for application under s.366
- Applicant failed to file materials supporting amendment application
- Amendment application dismissed on 28 November 2025
- Respondents filed written submissions on 8 December 2025 objecting to jurisdiction
- Applicant did not file any response submissions
Factors
For
Against
- First Respondent is not a national system employer and does not fall within Chapter 3, Part 3-1 jurisdiction
- First Respondent represents State of Queensland and has not referred legislative powers to Commonwealth
- Second Respondent is a public sector employee of State of Queensland
- Second Respondent could not be civilly liable for alleged conduct
- First Respondent was not the employer and did not dismiss the applicant
- Without Hudson as an employer respondent, there is no legally competent allegation of a primary contravention
Legislation referenced
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.365
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.366
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Chapter 3, Part 3-1
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.550
Concept tags · 6
Archived text (684 words)
[2026] FWC 1637 1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal Chelli Edri v The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor (C2025/9148) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BUTLER BRISBANE, 8 MAY 2026 Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – jurisdictional objection upheld – application dismissed [1] On 11 September 2025 the Applicant Ms Chelli Edri filed an application for the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute involving dismissal, in reliance on section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Fair Work Act”). She named the First Respondent as the Public Trustee of Queensland and also named a natural person as the Second Respondent. [2] The Respondents objected to the application on the grounds that the Applicant was not an employee and was not dismissed, and the First Respondent was not a national system employer. They said the First Respondent represents State of Queensland and the Second Respondent was an employee of State of Queensland. [3] On 3 November 2025 the Applicant sought leave to amend her application to name a private sector entity, Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd (‘Hudson’), as her employer and a respondent in these proceedings. Ms Edri’s initiating application had given her effective dismissal date as 1 September 2025, so she was well out-of-time to bring an application against her employer under section 365 of the Fair Work Act (see section 366). Hudson objected to leave being granted and also said it had not dismissed Ms Edri. [4] I programmed directions in order to decide the State’s objections, Ms Edri’s application to amend her substantive application to add Hudson as the employer respondent, and Hudson’s objection on the basis that it has not dismissed Ms Edri. I issued those directions in a directions order dated 6 November 2025. [5] The Applicant failed to file any materials in support of her application for leave to amend, and in response to those directions. Accordingly, I dismissed the application for leave to amend the application, to add Hudson as a respondent, on 28 November 2025. DECISION [2026] FWC 1637 2 [6] The Respondents filed written submissions in support of their objections on 8 December 2025. They submit the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Applicant’s application against them, as: “(a) the First Respondent is not a national system employer, and therefore does not fall within the jurisdiction of Chapter 3, Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act; (b) the First Respondent is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission in relation to matters involving public sector employers and employees of the State of Queensland, because it has not referred its legislative powers to the Commonwealth in respect of same; (c) the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with an application against the Second Respondent because she is a public sector employee of the State of Queensland. Further, even if the Commission did have that jurisdiction (which is denied), there is no utility in identifying the Second Respondent as a respondent because she could not be civilly liable for her alleged conduct; and (d) to the extent it remains relevant, the First Respondent did not dismiss the Applicant because it was not her employer; (e) in the absence of Hudson as an employer respondent and therefore any legally competent allegation of a primary contravention of the Fair Work Act, the Respondents cannot be persons involved in a contravention for the purposes of s 550 of the Fair Work Act as, put simply, there is no contravention in which the Respondents could be involved.” [7] The Applicant did not file any submissions in response. I consider the Respondents’ submissions, which I have just set out, to be uncontested. I accept the submissions set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) above. Having done so it is unnecessary for me to decide whether to accept the submissions set out in paragraph (e). The Commission lacks jurisdiction to deal with the dispute against the Respondents. The application is dismissed. I order accordingly. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR799783>