However, Dubow will not get to argue this in the Fair Work Commission because she was out of time to file the application and there were no exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline.

Deputy president Tony Saunders said Dubow was “litigation heavy” recently and chose to prioritise “various pieces of personal litigation” over commencing a general protections application against the firm.

Although the time frame meant the application would not go ahead, Saunders still considered Dubow’s claim “to be a weak one”.

After being out of the workforce for about a decade, Dubow was hired to work with East Coast Law in August last year.

The firm agreed to provide the two weeks’ accommodation and bond payment to assist with relocation from Dunedoo on the condition that she was to repay the full amount at the end of her employment.

At the time, she was an undischarged bankrupt and the NSW Law Society was aware of two contested criminal charges against her.

During her employment, Dubow was seeking an annulment of an intimidation conviction and was involved in strike out proceedings for an apprehended violence order (AVO), both relating to neighbours.

VIEW ALL

More legal troubles arose after a dispute with her neighbour’s mother-in-law on Christmas Day, in which Dubow was allegedly hit with falling bricks when the other woman kicked at building materials.

In about mid-January, Dubow no longer had a rental to live in and said it was difficult to find another place because of her cats.

A senior solicitor at East Coast Law agreed to allow Dubow to stay at the firm’s offices for two nights but no longer.

When the solicitor emailed to ask Dubow about her plans afterwards, Dubow wrote: “Would you like me to resign as at 31 January or wait until 15 February for your leave? The situation is untenable and I am on a lot of pain killers and not making any money.”

The firm accepted her resignation.

Two days before her final day with the firm, an administrative officer advised Dubow about an alleged overpayment of wages arising from her limited accrual of personal leave and annual leave.

A payment plan for the alleged debt was made, but Dubow did not sign.

In mid-March, Dubow was then contacted by a debt collector and a law firm engaged by East Coast Law to recover the alleged debt and the money the firm put up for the relocation costs. It was around this time that Dubow commenced the Fair Work action.

In submissions to the commission to explain the delay, Dubow said she was focused on “maintaining her record free of criminal antecedents” and remaining safe from her “barbaric neighbours”.

She added she was also “defending her reputation as an honest lawyer so that she could maintain a right to work as a solicitor”.

On the issue of the termination, Dubow claimed the injury from Christmas Day was the reason for the delay and for her dismissal.

“The termination of my employment was a constructive dismissal.

“There was no notice period applied or indeed respect for my right to not be terminated whilst injured,” Dubow submitted.

Saunders said it was a “weak argument” to say East Coast Law wanted to end her employment because she overstayed her welcome, as it was “undoubtedly a reasonable step for [the firm] to take”.

Saunders added that while it may have been challenging to find another place to live, Dubow still had the option to find new accommodation.

“It would be difficult for Dubow to succeed in an argument that, as a professional solicitor of many years standing, she could not find any accommodation … within a reasonable distance,” Saunders said.

“I am of the view that Dubow’s prospects of success in relation to her general protections application are weak.”