An employer must satisfy the procedural requirements of s65A(3) in considering and responding to a request for flexible working arrangements; failure to do so may result in the worker's request being granted.

The FWC may deal with a dispute only if expressly authorised to do so under another provision of the FW Act, and a prerequisite for s.739(1) jurisdiction is that one of the terms of s.738 applies and allows the Commission to deal with a dispute.

Section 65B of the Act applies only to employees, and once employment has ceased, an application for flexible work dispute is no longer applicable to ceased employment.

Where an applicant is no longer an employee at the time of determination, an application for flexible working arrangements dispute under s.65B is without reasonable prospects of success because the request is no longer fruitful.

A deficiency in form, process or substance of an employer's response to a validly made flexible work request does not preclude the Commission from dealing with a dispute, given the nature of orders available under s.65C.

The FWC's jurisdiction under s.65B(1) applies only where there is either a refusal of a flexible working arrangement request or a failure to respond in writing within 21 days of such a request.

Termination of an already-approved and formalised flexible working arrangement does not constitute a 'refusal' of the original request within the meaning of s.65B(1)(b)(i), as the request was already granted.

A link between a circumstance in s65(1A) and the proposed working arrangements is a jurisdictional requirement of an application under s65B. The Act requires that the desired change in working arrangements must be 'because of' the relevant circumstance in s65(1A), and the request for change must relate to the relevant circumstance.

The applicant must establish that there is a logical nexus between the circumstances relied upon and the working arrangement sought. Occasional childcare obligations do not constitute an impediment to working in the office some of the time, and disability-related symptoms of discomfort are distinct from medical prohibition of the activity.

In arbitrating a flexible work request dispute under s65C, the Commission has a broader discretion than when merely assessing reasonableness of refusal under s65A(3)(d), including the power to weigh the interests of the employer and employee having regard to fairness between them.

Under s65C(3) of the Fair Work Act, the Commission must be positively satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the dispute being resolved without an order being made before it can make an order under s65C(1)(f).

Where the substantive dispute about flexible working arrangements has been resolved by the parties' conduct and decisions, such that the applicant will be permitted to work from home for the remainder of their employment, there is a reasonable prospect of resolution without an order, and therefore no order under s65C(1)(f) can be made.