‘Serious misconduct’ sees unfair dismissal case thrown out

The applicant for an unfair dismissal claim denied allegations of misconduct from her boss while she schemed to establish a real estate agency with her husband.

Deputy president Ian Masson dropped Taylah Chislett’s unfair dismissal claim in the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on Friday, 14 November 2025.

Chislett was hired as a full-time software training assistant and support officer on 10 June 2024 at iProperty Express, of which Junhai Kan was its sole director. iProperty provided property management software to real estate and property businesses across Australia.

In her role, Chislett was to provide software support, onboarding, training, and update documentation for the company’s clients – her position gave her access to confidential client information contained in its digital systems.

Alleged ‘concerning conduct’

Chislett said that in or around January 2025, she began to experience “concerning conduct” at the hands of iProperty, which made her question whether she wanted to continue employment with iProperty, Masson found. Chislett said this conduct included interstate travel and unpaid overtime, out-of-pocket travel costs, and expectations for expediency.

Masson found that, as a result, Chislett decided that she wanted to resign, stating that she “did not appreciate working for someone who saw no value in her”, handing in her resignation letter on 14 April 2025, effective 4 July 2025.

Potential conflict of interest

Half a month into her notice period, on 29 April 2025, an iProperty staff member discovered that Chislett had a profile on the website of a competitor named Global Property, in which she was listed as a director.

This prompted iProperty’s sole director, Kan, to hold a meeting with her and a member of the company’s board on 1 May, providing Chislett an opportunity to explain her involvement with Global Property.

At the hearing, Kan alleged that during this meeting, Chislett said that she “could not recall when she became aware of the profile, denied any involvement in the creation of the profile, stated that her husband managed it, she did not have a contract with Global Property and hadn’t completed any work for them”.

On 5 May 2025, Chislett was alerted by her colleague that she had been removed from the team’s training chat group and had her access to the company’s systems revoked.

Employment agreement

Clause 2.7 of Chislett’s employment agreement provided that she was not to “be engaged, employed, concerned or interested directly or indirectly … in any proposal, project, assignment or development which is in or in connection with the industry in which the Company is concerned”.

Additionally, clause 13 of the agreement outlined that she was not to divulge confidential information that belonged to iProperty that included but was not limited to: “in any proposal, project, assignment, or development which is in or in connection with the industry in which the Company is concerned” and “any other like information including copies, abstracts, reports, notes and summaries of that Confidential Information”.

Following Kan’s investigation, he sent Chislett an immediately effective letter of termination on 12 May 2025.

Complicit but ‘not involved’

Chislett’s husband, Howie Simpson, revealed upon questioning at the hearing that he had “caused” the creation of his wife’s profile on the Global Property website for “security”. Masson found that Chislett had commenced employment with Global Property on a casual basis, while she was still working for iProperty.

In a letter to Kan on 5 May 2025, she wrote that she had not received any remuneration from Global Property, nor had she performed any work for the company. However, during the hearing, Simpson unveiled their plans to collude towards a different goal, outside the interests of iProperty.

Chislett, the ‘secondary agent’

During Kan’s investigations, which commenced from the discovery of Chislett’s Global Property profile in late April, he discovered that Chislett had a profile on realestate.com, which listed that she had sold three properties in April.

In addition, Kan found that Chislett was attributed as a secondary agent on the sale of a property on 6 May 2025, and another sale on 29 April 2025 – the same day that Kan’s colleague alerted him of Chislett’s profile on the Global Property website.

Increasing ‘reputations and brand awareness’

Billy Schroeder of Global Property confirmed the employment of Chislett during the hearing, where in correspondence he stated: “Global Property engaged Ms Chislett to be employed on a casual basis, during this time she acted as an open host, and she wasn’t paid any commissions in relation to the alleged property sales referred to in the proceedings.”

Prior to Chislett’s casual employment with Global Properties, she and her husband had discussed aims to open their own real estate business, Simpson revealed at the hearing. He unveiled that in or around February 2025, Schroeder said that, through working as real estate agents with Global Property, Chislett and Simpson could create their own business.

Based on the couple’s mutual agreement, Simpson was to commence with Global Property, while Chislett was to remain employed by iProperty – to increase their “reputations and brand awareness, [Chislett] would be listed as a secondary agent on any properties Mr Simpson was selling”, Masson heard.

Weighing the evidence provided to him, Masson found that Chislett’s conduct of “dishonesty” and secondary employment without consent established a valid reason for her dismissal as it “constitutes serious misconduct”.

Considering that “no other factors weigh in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair”, Masson upheld iProperty’s decision to terminate Chislett and dismissed her application.

The case: Taylah Chislett v iProperty Express Pty Ltd (U2025/9292).