According to her LinkedIn and the Queensland Law Society’s Register of Solicitors, Pooler was admitted as a solicitor in 2020.

On 3 December 2024, Hodgson Lawyers sent Pooler a termination letter for performance reasons, but Pooler told the commission this was “being used as a pretext” and the “real reason” was her pregnancy.

Pooler notified Hodgson Lawyers that she would complete the remainder of the notice period with her annual leave.

Ten days later, the general protections application was filed.

Hodgson Lawyers objected to the application on the basis that it had been made before Pooler’s termination took effect and, therefore, fell outside of the commission’s 21-day time frame.

VIEW ALL

Pooler claimed her dismissal was effective from 3 December, but FWC deputy president Nicholas Lake said this had to be rejected because the termination letter made it clear her employment would end on 31 December but she would cease work from 20 December for Christmas.

However, Lake also acknowledged Pooler would suffer prejudice if the application was dismissed. If filed again, it would be out of the time frame, Pooler would need to apply for an extension of time, and that would incur additional time and cost for both parties.

Hodgson Lawyers admitted it would not suffer prejudice but did say its “time has been wasted” because it would have to attend twice in circumstances where Pooler has not appeared at the hearings.

Lake acknowledged it was “disappointing” Pooler had “inexplicably stopped” community with the commission, but he was not prepared to find there was a prejudice to Hodgson Lawyers on that basis.

“Neither would it be appropriate to dismiss the application for want of prosecution because the applicant did file her submissions correctly in accordance with the directions,” Lake said.

On the substantive issues, Lake said he would not make any findings as to its correctness or whether it was without merit.

The case is Heidi Pooler v Hodgson Lawyers (C2024/9058).