A bookkeeper who accidentally shared an explicit photo to a group chat and tampered with medical documents will receive more than $24,000 in compensation after being fired from her ex-husband’s nightclub.
The woman, identified as “LL” in the Fair Work Commission’s judgment, was married to “CL”: the majority shareholder and managing director of Melbourne-based nightclub owner Platform One, until their marriage broke down in 2024 and family law proceedings began.
The case highlights the complexity of an employment dispute that is entwined with a deteriorating personal relationship between workers.
LL had been working as a bookkeeper and business manager since 2014, but also performed some work “off the books” for the business before that date. She was employed by a trustee for the business.
In November 2025, after the marriage breakdown, LL was notified of the firm’s intention to terminate her employment because of “allegations of serious misconduct, an inability for you to return to work and perform the inherent requirements of your role”.
The letter alleged that LL had increased her own salary without permission, sent an explicit photo to a work group chat and made unauthorised adjustments to her certificate of capacity.
A week later, LL was dismissed. About the same time, her family lawyers contacted CL’s family lawyers, denying the allegations and alleging that CL was engaging in coercive control.
At the end of 2024, LL had posted a photo exposing her upper body to a work WhatsApp group that included her ex-husband, other directors and managers. The photo was removed after a few minutes, and was accompanied by a message saying “enjoy” with a devil emoticon that LL said was a cover-up for her embarrassment and to pretend it was a joke.
LL said she was “mortified” after mistakenly posting the photo while driving, and provided evidence that she had intended to send the photo to her surgeon as part of a post-surgery check-up. A letter from her doctor confirmed that it was “part of standard post-operative care” to provide routine post-operative images for clinical review.
While the commissioner said that sending a photo while driving was “concerning and extremely unsafe”, and that LL should have apologised and explained the situation rather than trying to make a joke, she accepted that LL had accidentally posted the photo.
Separately, in April 2025, LL provided a certificate of capacity stating that she had no capacity for employment from April 18 to May 16, 2025 because of migraines, anxiety, poor concentration, poor sleep, apprehension and hypervigilance.
LL conceded that she had made adjustments to the certificate, including adding a sentence that “migraine insets” were “more severe due to workplace bullying” and adding the company name, which the commissioner said constituted misconduct.
While the commissioner found LL’s inappropriate remarks after posting the explicit photo, and her tampering with a medical certificate, counted as misconduct which “in certain circumstances could be a valid reason for dismissal”, she said that in this case, that conduct was not the real reason for LL’s dismissal.
“No one raised the photograph matter with LL until the show cause letter almost a year later,” the commissioner said, noting that the tampered certificate was also not raised until then. “The real reason for dismissal was not misconduct but rather the [company’s] reluctance to continue paying LL when she was not at work.”
The commissioner said that LL’s inability to perform the inherent requirements of the job – due to disability, the relationship breakdown with CL and the nature of her duties working closely with CL – were a valid reason for dismissal, but found that she was not given a proper opportunity to respond, nor a warning before the show cause letter.
Commissioner Susie Allison found LL’s salary had “more likely than not” been approved by CL and that it was “hard to believe” Platform One had not authorised and accepted the increase given they continued to pay her at the increased rate 10 months after it was discovered.
Allison also said that the company had failed to provide LL with a safe work environment after she raised allegations of domestic violence and told the venue manager that she had found sexually explicit drawings in her inbox which she believed were placed there by CL.
While the firm claimed that CL was not involved in any decisions about LL’s employment after the marriage breakdown, the commissioner found that CL wielded “considerable power and influence” at the company, used his family lawyers to provide work directions to LL, including a request that she work from home, and that he had some involvement in the decision to fire LL.
The company was ordered to pay LL compensation of $24,548 plus superannuation.
Platform One was contacted for comment.
Get workplace news, advice and perspectives to help make your job work for you. Sign up for our weekly Thank God it’s Monday newsletter.
Millie Muroi is the economics writer at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age covering workplace and economics. She was formerly an economics correspondent based in Canberra’s Press Gallery and the banking writer based in Sydney.Connect via X or email.From our partners
About the Author
