FWC warns on AI‑authored claims: Deysel v Electra Lift Co [2025] FWC 2289

In Mr Branden Deysel v Electra Lift Co [2025] FWC 2289 (8 August 2025), the Commission refused to extend time for a claim filed 919 days late, finding the applicant’s asserted ignorance of his rights and fear of retribution unpersuasive and unsupported.

The decision also underscores the obvious danger of relying on artificial intelligence for legal advice: the application—drafted with ChatGPT and reproducing its “advice”—was, in the Deputy President’s words, best described as “hopeless.”

Key takeaways

• A general protections dismissal application must be lodged within 21 days of dismissal; extensions are granted only in exceptional circumstances assessed against statutory factors.

• In Mr Branden Deysel v Electra Lift Co. [2025] FWC 2289 (8 August 2025), the Commission refused to extend time for a claim lodged 919 days late, finding the explanation (“I didn’t know my rights” and fear of retribution) unpersuasive and unsupported.

• The decision highlights the “obvious danger of relying on artificial intelligence for legal advice”; the application, drafted with ChatGPT and containing an extract of its “advice”, was “best described as hopeless”.

  
  

What happened

Mr Deysel resigned in writing in October 2022. Almost two and a half years later, he filed a s365 general‑protections‑involving‑dismissal application and sought an extension of time under s366(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He said he had been unaware of his workplace rights and feared possible “retribution” if he took action. Deputy President Slevin rejected both explanations: the Commission has repeatedly said that ignorance of the 21‑day limit is not a reason for delay, and there was no evidence of any retribution risk.

Critically, Mr Deysel used ChatGPT to prepare his application and included an extract of the tool’s “advice” asserting various statutory contraventions and recommending, among other things, a s365 application. The Deputy President stated he could see “no basis for this advice” and, more broadly, warned of the “obvious danger of relying on artificial intelligence for legal advice.” 

The Commission then assessed the s366 factors—length of delay, action taken to dispute the dismissal, prejudice to the employer, merits of the claim, and fairness as between persons in like positions—and refused the extension, dismissing the application. (The statutory test and factors appear in FW Act s366.)

Case citation: Mr Branden Deysel v Electra Lift Co. [2025] FWC 2289 (Deputy President Slevin, 8 August 2025).

The law in a minute: s365 and s366

• s365 allows a person to apply to the FWC to deal with a general protections dispute involving dismissal.

• s366(1) requires the application to be lodged within 21 days after dismissal took effect (or such further period as allowed).

• s366(2) permits an extension only in “exceptional circumstances”, taking into account the factors set out in s366(2)(a)–(e) (length of delay; action taken; prejudice to the employer; merits; fairness compared with others).

  
  

The FWC also publishes guidance consistent with the statute: extensions are only available where exceptional circumstances exist.

What the Commission said about AI in this case

Deputy President Slevin recorded that Mr Deysel confirmed he used ChatGPT to prepare his application. The decision notes:

• the deficiencies in the filing failed to address the matters necessary to establish a contravention of Part 3‑1 of the FW Act;

• the “advice” in the application had no basis; and

• relying on AI led to “proceedings that are best described as hopeless”, wasting resources of both the Commission and the employer.

  
  

This is not a condemnation of technology per se—to the contrary, the Commission observed that ChatGPT itself advised consulting a lawyer or union representative.

The problem was blind reliance: the applicant “simply followed the suggestion made by Chat GPT and commenced the proceedings.” 

FWC warns on AI‑authored claims: Deysel v Electra Lift Co [2025] FWC 2289

Why the extension failed

Putting the AI issue to one side, the statutory factors decisively pointed against an extension:

• Length of delay: approximately 919 days—well beyond the 21‑day limit.

• Action taken: none until the out‑of‑time filing.

• Prejudice: the employer should not be forced to “revisit events from [over two years] ago” without warning.

• Merits: the application’s content (including AI‑generated assertions) did not identify a tenable contravention.

Because the threshold for an extension is exceptional circumstances, and the factors weighed against relief, the application was dismissed.

The bigger lesson for workers and advocates

AI is now part of our daily practice. Used wisely, it can speed up research, draft checklists, and help spot issues.

"Used unwisely, it’s like handing the keys to a Ferrari to a toddler—powerful, fast, and catastrophically dangerous in the wrong hands..."

Deysel shows exactly how a tool can amplify error: superficial “advice,” procedural missteps, and wasted time and money.

A safer way to use AI in employment disputes

1. Start with the clock. Before anything else, record the dismissal date and count 21 days. If you are even close to the deadline, file the correct form promptly or seek urgent advice about s366.

2. Treat AI as a junior assistant—not counsel. Use it to outline issues or generate checklists, then verify every proposition against legislation (FW Act), the FWC website, and relevant authorities.

3. Identify the right jurisdiction and remedy. AI can confuse s365 (general protections) with s394 (unfair dismissal) or recommend scatter‑gun filings. Confirm you’re in the correct statutory pathway.

4. Evidence first. If you believe there’s employer reprisal risk, document it—facts and dates, not speculation. The FWC will expect evidence.

5. Get a human expert to read the draft. Even ChatGPT said to consult a lawyer or union. Do that—before lodging.

   
   

Practical checklist (print and pin)

• Dismissal date noted; Day 0 = date dismissal took effect.

• 21‑day deadline calendared (with buffer reminders).

• Correct application selected (s365 for general protections involving dismissal).

• Extension grounds prepared only if truly exceptional, addressing each s366 factor with evidence.

• Draft reviewed by a human advocate; AI outputs verified against the Act and FWC guidance.

• Lodged on time; employer served; file retained.

  
  

Final word

Deysel doesn’t ban AI from the workplace relations toolbox; it polices how we use it. The Commission will look past flashy tech and ask the same old questions: Is the claim in time? Is it the right claim? Where is the evidence? When AI is used as a shortcut to skip those steps, the result can be—quoting the Deputy President—“hopeless.”

Case & sources

• Mr Branden Deysel v Electra Lift Co. [2025] FWC 2289 (8 August 2025) — Decision of DP Slevin.

• HR Daily report summarising the decision and the 919‑day delay.

• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) — s365 and s366 (time limit and extension test).

If you’re up against the 21‑day clock or unsure which pathway to use, get tailored advice from a human advocate first—and let AI help only after the foundations are set.