iscover
An accounting firm has failed to compel a former employee to pay its costs associated with her discontinued unfair dismissal case against the firm.
On 11 October 2024, accountant Fiona Dosen was dismissed for alleged misconduct after 15 years of working for accounting firm Taxtips Blacktown. Her former employer, Russell May, had accused her of linking and delinking taxpayer accounts on 9 October 2024.
On 1 November 2024, Dosen filed an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission, which she later discontinued.
The Fair Work Commission determined that Dosen was not likely to have committed the misconduct she had been accused of, and, therefore, she had been reasonable in submitting her unfair dismissal claim.
“No action has seemingly been taken from the ATO in relation to the alleged linking and delinking of accounts by Ms Dosen. The evidence suggests that Ms Dosen did not commit the misconduct that Mr May identified as the reason for her summary dismissal,” court documents read.
“Ms Dosen was a long-term employee with over 15 years of service, and Mr May did not follow any sort of fair process when communicating Ms Dosen’s dismissal.”
On 7 May 2025, Dosen filed a notice to discontinue her unfair dismissal application. According to court documents, she had found that her application had become “uncommercial” – the legal fees associated with her application would exceed any compensation she would receive from a successful case.
After she discontinued the case, on 20 May 2025, her former employer filed an application for costs, which would order Dosen to pay Taxtips’ legal fees. Taxtips argued that Dosen had acted unreasonably in filing for unfair dismissal.
The court found that at the time of Dosen’s dismissal, May had only raised the matter of linking and delinking taxpayer accounts as a reason to terminate her.
“There is no contest that when Ms Dosen filed her unfair dismissal application on 1 November 2024, the only reason that had been communicated to her for being summarily dismissed on 11 October 2024 was the alleged linking and delinking of taxpayer accounts on 9 October 2024,” court documents read.
The FWC found that Dosen had reasonable grounds to file an unfair dismissal claim, given that she had been dismissed for a reason that “she knew was likely to be incorrect [and] the termination procedure was flawed,” court documents read.
The court ruled that Dosen’s decision to lodge an unfair dismissal case had been reasonable, and therefore she should not be liable for the costs that May sought.
May had raised some additional concerns regarding Dosen following her initial unfair dismissal application. He alleged that Dosen had used his JP stamp without his permission, and breached various duties and obligations concerning the operation of her side business, The Tax Boss.
Dosen operated her own accounting business, ‘The Tax Boss’, as a sole trader. Court documents suggested that she had moved beyond performing work for “mainly friends and family” or “family and neighbours” and that she had performed work for her side business at times when she was being paid to work for Taxtips.
The court found “significant factual contest” between Dosen and May regarding The Tax Boss business, which it was reluctant to make findings on.
For example, May claimed to have only found out about The Tax Boss after Dosen’s unfair dismissal claim, but evidence indicated that he had known about it since 2021.
“While in many cases the operation of a separate business potentially in competition with the business of one’s employer would constitute clear and obvious serious misconduct, that is not this case,” court documents read.
“Mr May was aware that Ms Dosen was operating The Tax Boss business since around 2021 and had consented to it being operated by Ms Dosen to at least some degree.”
The court determined that May had not raised these concerns with Dosen at the time he dismissed her. As such, it concluded the unfair dismissal case had been lodged on reasonable grounds.
“My decision may have been different if Taxtips had consistently stated that Mr May was aware of The Tax Boss business since around 2021 and that Ms Dosen had engaged in work that went well beyond what Mr May had authorised,” court documents read.
“However, it appears Mr May initially instructed his lawyers that he had no knowledge of the business at all until after Ms Dosen was dismissed. That was inaccurate, and Mr May must have known it was inaccurate.”
