b'CASE LAW DISMISSALMr Mitchell Fuller v Madison Branson Lawyers Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 784 (7 April 2025)What happened: Mr Mitchell Fuller was employed as a solicitor with Madison Branson Lawyers from January 2023 until his summarydismissal on 4 August 2024. The dismissal arose primarily because Mr Fuller lied about being sick, or at least about hiswhereabouts, on 5 April and 8 April 2024.On Easter Monday, 1 April 2024, he booked a flight to Adelaide for Thursday night (4 April) and on Tuesday 2nd April,bought a ticket to an AFL game for the Friday. He attended work normally from 2 to 4 April but did not inform anyone ofhis travel plans or request leave.After flying to Adelaide late on 4 April, he emailed the firm on 5 April claiming he was unwell and would obtain a medicalcertificate. Then spent the day enjoying events, alcohol and socialising. On 8 April, he sent another email claimingcontinued illness and again promised a medical certificate.Mr Fuller did not provide a medical certificate for 5 April but later made a statutory declaration asserting he was sick thatday and unable to see his regular doctor. For 8 April, he obtained a medical certificate from an online provider, but it wasunclear whether he had actually consulted a doctor.His employer only discovered the Adelaide trip after engaging an HR consultant in July 2024, who happened upon photoson Mr Fullers social media from the weekend showing him at the Adelaide Oval and social events. The principalssuspected dishonesty, suspended him, and then dismissed him.A Glib Deflection:When first putting the allegation to Mr Fuller, the employer had alleged that he had Engaged in conduct that is harmful tothe reputation of the firm by procuring the approval of paid sick leave.Mr Fuller responded stating I deny having engaged in any conduct harmful to the reputation of the firm. I have not beenable to identify any evidence of reputational damage to the firm in the materials you have provided. Do let me know if thereis something I have missed. Deputy President Bell stated that his response was a glib deflection. "Rather than engaging with the substance of thatserious allegation, [he] engaged in unmeritorious debating points by seeking to frame this issue about proof of the firm\'sreputation.Outcome: The Fair Work Commission upheld the summary dismissal of Mr Fuller concluding that there were multiple valid reasons forhis termination. Deputy President Bell emphasised the seriousness of Mr Fullers conduct, noting that his false statementsand statutory declaration were extremely serious given his role as a solicitor who should be acutely aware of theseriousness of such matters.DP Bell stated that the best possible interpretation was that Mr Fuller was simply indifferent to the accuracy of his witnessstatement to the point of falsity. The Commission found that Mr Fuller had lied to the firm about being sick and made afalse statutory declaration, which was a key factor justifying summary dismissal under the small business code.The deputy president also highlighted the employers reasonable grounds for their belief in Mr Fullers dishonesty: [The twoprincipals] each believed that [he] had lied to the firm about being sick and had also made a false statutory declaration indoing so. I also have no hesitation in concluding, for the purposes of the code, that the employers belief was based onreasonable grounds.Given these findings, the Commission dismissed Mr Fullers unfair dismissal application, affirming that the employer actedlawfully and reasonably in terminating his employment due to his serious misconduct.Page | 28 IR Update July 2025'