Talaugon v Allight Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 23 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] FCA 1672
• Date: 23 December 2025
• Court: Federal Court

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Talaugon v Allight Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1672

ORDERS

WAD 224 of 2023
BETWEEN:	AXEL TALAUGON Applicant
AND:	ALLIGHT PTY LTD ACN 053 434 807 First Respondent CHRISTOPHER DUNN Second Respondent ALEXANDRA GREENSILL (and another named in the Schedule) Third Respondent

order made by:	FEUTRILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 DECEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant’s originating application be dismissed and judgment be entered for the respondents against the applicant.

2. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 20 January 2026 the respondents file and serve any minute of proposed orders for costs in the proceeding together with an outline of submissions (limited to five pages) and any affidavit(s) in support of the proposed orders.

3. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 3 February 2026 the applicant file and serve submissions (limited to five pages) and any affidavit(s) in opposition to any minute of proposed orders filed in accordance with paragraph 2 of these orders.

4. If there be compliance with paragraph 2 of these orders, the question of the costs of the proceeding be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed.

5. The parties have liberty to apply to vary or set aside paragraphs 2 to 4 of these orders upon 48 hours’ written notice.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FEUTRILL J:

INTRODUCTION

1 During her employment with the first respondent (Allight) the applicant (Ms Talaugon) was the primary carer of her six-year-old daughter and pregnant with her second child. After a protracted period of negotiation, Allight agreed to a formal (written) flexible working arrangement with Ms Talaugon. Shortly after that agreement was reached, Allight began taking steps to place Ms Talaugon on a performance improvement plan and to discipline her with respect to certain conduct. These steps ultimately resulted in the termination of Ms Talaugon’s employment about two months after the flexible working arrangement was agreed.

2 Ms Talaugon claims that Allight contravened the National Employment Standards contrary to s 44 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in the manner in which it dealt with her request for flexible working arrangements (s 65) and in refusing to approve and pay personal or carer leave on three occasions (s 97). Ms Talaugon also claims that Allight terminated her employment because of her family or carer responsibilities and pregnancy in contravention of s 351(1) and (or) because she made a complaint or inquiry or proposed to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to her employment in contravention of s 340(1) of the Act. Additionally, Ms Talaugon claims that individual Allight employees, the second to third respondents (Mr Dunn, Ms Greensill and Ms Smith), were involved in Allight’s contraventions within the meaning of s 550 of the Act. Ms Talaugon claims damages and other relief against all respondents.

3 It is not in issue that the termination of Ms Talaugon’s employment was adverse action within the meaning of s 342(1) of the Act, that Ms Talaugon had family or carer responsibilities and was pregnant for the purposes of s 351(1), or that Ms Talaugon had made a complaint or inquiry or proposed to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to her employment that amounted to the exercise or proposed exercise of a workplace right for the purposes of s 340(1) and 341(1) of the Act. Nor is it in issue that Allight has the onus under s 361(1) of proving that the reason it terminated Ms Talaugon’s employment was not because of Ms Talaugon’s family or carer responsibilities and pregnancy and (or) was not because she had made a complaint or inquiry or proposed to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to her employment. However, all other facts and the characterisation of those facts are disputed. Consequently, the principal issues for determination in the proceeding are as follows.

(1) Was there a breach of the National Employment Standards for flexible working arrangements?

(2) Was there a breach of the National Employment Standards for paid personal or carer’s leave?

(3) Was Ms Talaugon’s employment terminated because of her family or carer responsibilities and pregnancy?

(4) Was Ms Talaugon’s employment terminated because she made a complaint or inquiry or proposed to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to her employment?

(5) If Allight contravened the Act, are each of Mr Dunn, Ms Greensill and Ms Smith taken to have also contravened the Act because he or she was involved in Allight’s contravention(s)?

(6) If Allight contravened the Act, has Ms Talaugon suffered loss or damage because of the contravention(s) and, if so, in what amount and, otherwise, is Ms Talaugon entitled to some other form of claimed relief?

(All references in these reasons to sections or Parts are references to the Fair Work Act unless otherwise indicated.)

BACKGROUND

Parties and evidence

4 Allight is a private company specialising in the design, manufacture and distribution of mobile lighting and power solutions. It has operations at premises located at Lansdale in the State of Western Australia. The Lansdale premises have a two-storey administration office building and a fabrication facility on that site. These buildings are adjacent to each other and connected by a corridor. The fabrication facility also has an office where, at the relevant time, daily production meetings were held each workday morning. At the relevant time, employees and visitors to the site were required to sign in and sign out at the administration office and comply with the occupational health and safety policies and requirements of Allight upon entering and leaving the fabrication facility.

5 Ms Talaugon gave evidence at the trial. She was employed by Allight between February 2022 and May 2023 as a contracts officer. She initially reported to Ms Pruitt and from about December 2022 reported to Mr Dunn. Ms Talaugon was involved in communications with Mr Dunn, Ms Greensill and Ms Smith. She gave evidence about three meetings with Mr Dunn and Ms Greensill and a discussion with Ms Pruitt. The discussion with Ms Pruitt concerned a flexible working arrangement Ms Talaugon alleges was put in place from the inception of her employment. The first meeting with Mr Dunn and Ms Greensill was a meeting on 24 February 2023 to discuss Ms Talaugon’s requests for a flexible working arrangement. The second was an unscheduled meeting to discuss the circumstances in which Ms Talaugon had brought her daughter to work without authority on 5 April 2023. The third was a show cause meeting on 19 May 2023 that immediately preceded the termination of Ms Talaugon’s employment. Ms Talaugon’s husband, Mr Brunner, also attended the show cause meeting by telephone as her support person. Ms Talaugon also called Mr Brunner to give evidence about that meeting.

6 Allight called Mr Ahmad to give evidence at the trial. Mr Ahmad was Allight’s general manager of operations, product and service. He has been employed by Allight since 2005 when he joined the company as a product design engineer. For the last 15 years he has held managerial positions and approximately 70% of Allight’s workforce directly or indirectly reports to him. He was the person who ultimately made the decision to terminate Ms Talaugon’s employment. He gave direct evidence of his subjective reasons for making that decision.

7 Allight called Ms Smith to give evidence at the trial. Ms Smith was Allight’s general manager of people, culture and safety. She has been employed by Allight since about April 2019. She was initially employed as a human resources manager and then promoted to general manager around July 2019. Ms Smith was involved in communications with Mr Dunn about Ms Talaugon’s flexible working arrangements and performance. Ms Smith was also involved in communications with Ms Greensill in relation to those matters and steps taken in the management of Ms Talaugon that led to her termination. Ms Smith was also involved in providing advice and recommendations to Mr Ahmad that informed his decision to terminate Ms Talaugon’s employment. Ms Smith attended a meeting at which Ms Talaugon’s employment was terminated with Ms Greensill.

8 Allight called Ms Greensill to give evidence at trial. Ms Greensill was employed by Allight between March 2021 and April 2024 in the role of people and culture advisor. In that role she had responsibility to provide human resources support to managers and employees throughout the Allight business. She also had responsibility for inducting new employees, disciplinary meetings, performance management and recruitment. In around February 2023 Ms Smith asked her to assist Mr Dunn with the management of Ms Talaugon. Ms Greensill was then involved in communications with Mr Dunn and Ms Smith concerning Ms Talaugon’s flexible working arrangements, performance, and management. Ms Greensill was also involved in attempts to arrange a performance meeting and a disciplinary meeting with Ms Talaugon, sending a written warning to Ms Talaugon, scheduling the show cause meeting and holding a termination meeting with Ms Talaugon. She also gave evidence of the meetings on 24 February, 5 April and 19 May 2023.

9 Allight called Mr Dunn to give evidence at trial. Mr Dunn was employed by Allight between September 2022 and February 2024 initially in the role of category manager and shortly thereafter in the role of purchasing and procurement manager. Before working for Allight, Mr Dunn had approximately 30 years of management experience in account management, sales management and supply chain management. Mr Dunn was Ms Talaugon’s direct manager and report from about December 2022. He was involved in communications with Ms Talaugon regarding flexible working arrangements, her day-to-day management and meetings with Ms Talaugon and Ms Greensill relating to Ms Talaugon’s flexible working arrangements and discipline. Mr Dunn was also in communication with Ms Smith and Ms Greensill regarding concerns he...