1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Qasim Mehmood v Mount Isa Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Limited (U2026/1372) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 10 JUNE 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – multiple applications – s 725 of the Act – application dismissed [1] On 21 March 2026, Qasim Mehmood (the Applicant) made an unlawful termination application (First Application) under s 773 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) alleging that they were unlawfully terminated by Gidgee Healing (Mt Isa Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service Ltd) (the Respondent). [2] On 25 March 2026, the Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application (Second Application) under s 394 of the Act alleging that they were unfairly dismissed by Mount Isa Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Limited. [3] The Second Application was originally allocated to my Chambers as the application fee remained outstanding and the application was lodged outside the statutory timeframe provided by s 394(2) of the Act. My Chambers emailed the Applicant regarding the outstanding application fee and out of time lodgement on 14 April 2026. The Applicant replied on 15 April 2026, stating that his application was lodged two days late because they initially lodged a Form F9 ‘which was not accepted’. The First Application has not been discontinued and remains before the Commission. [4] My Chambers emailed the Applicant on 17 April 2026. The correspondence informed the Applicant that two applications were before the Commission and explained that the operation of s 725 of the Act meant that the Second Application could not continue. The Applicant was provided an opportunity to discontinue the Second Application and placed on notice that, absent a discontinuance being received within a set period, I would likely dismiss the Second Application without further notice to them. The Applicant did not respond to this correspondence. [5] On 28 May 2026, my Chambers emailed the Applicant, noting that the Applicant had not provided a response to the previous correspondence. The Applicant was again reminded that I was considering the dismissal of the Second Application due to the operation of s 725 of the Act. The Applicant was directed to file any submissions as to why I should not dismiss the [2026] FWC 1942 DECISION AND ORDER [2026] FWC 1942 2 Application under s 587 of the Act within a set period. The Applicant did not provide any such submissions and did not discontinue the Second Application. [6] Section 587 of the Act confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss the Application. I am satisfied that the Applicant has had the opportunity to put forward a case for consideration on all matters material to the making of the decision to dismiss the Application under s 587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]- [16] and the cases cited therein). [7] The Applicant is barred from pursuing his Second Application by the ‘general rule’ against multiple applications in s 725 of the Act. [8] I am satisfied that the Second Application was not made in accordance with s 725 of the Act and that it is appropriate that I exercise power in s 587(1)(a) of the Act to dismiss the Second Application. A. The application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Qasim Mehmood on 25 March 2026 in matter no. U2026/1372 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR810444>