Application by Pennisi
Fair Work Commission · Feb 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Fair Work Commission
- Record ID
- application-by-pennisi-2026-02-05
- Observed outcome
- The application for an extension of time was dismissed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the applicant's request for an extension of time to file a general protections claim. The Commission identified that the applicant relied on a non-existent legal authority, Iwasaki v Hays [2019] FWCFB 1761, in an attempt to establish 'exceptional circumstances' for a significant filing delay. The Commission rejected this argument and dismissed the application.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on an authority cited as Iwasaki v Hays [2019] FWCFB 1761; the Commission found that this citation does not exist and declined to treat it as supporting exceptional circumstances.
Fabricated authorities cannot establish exceptional circumstances; verify every cited case against primary sources.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was an application for an extension of time to file a general protections dismissal dispute under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which was determined on the papers by the Fair Work Commission.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The Commission noted the applicant's submissions appeared to be generated by AI.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.