Allmark v Eastern Guruma Pty Ltd - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1564

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Allmark v Eastern Guruma Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1564

File number: PEG 252 of 2025

Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS

Date of judgment: 19 September 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time to file a general protections court application under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – extension of time granted.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 368, 370

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 477

Federal Circuit of Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 2.05(4)

Cases cited:
Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298

EIW20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1514

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 13

Date of hearing: 19 September 2025

Place: Perth (via Webex)

Applicant: The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms D Hartfield

Solicitor for the Respondent: Jackson McDonald
ORDERS

PEG 252 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
DEAN ALLMARK

Applicant

AND:
EASTERN GURUMA PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LADHAMS

DATE OF ORDER:

19 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the time within which the applicant may make his application to this Court is extended to 6 June 2025.
2.The matter is referred to mediation to be conducted by a Registrar of this Court on a date to be fixed by that Registrar.
3.Should the mediation referred to in order 2 be unsuccessful, the matter is to be listed for a further directions hearing before a Judge of this Court on a date to be fixed.
4.The parties have liberty to apply.
5.There be no order as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript)
JUDGE LADHAMS:

Mr Allmark seeks an extension of time to make an application in the Fair Work Division of this Court. Mr Allmark claims that he was dismissed by Eastern Guruma Pty Ltd (Eastern Guruma) in contravention of a general protection under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act).
On 21 May 2025 the Fair Work Commissioner issued a certificate under s 368 of the Fair Work Act in relation to the dispute between the parties. Pursuant to s 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act, Mr Allmark was required to make his application to this Court within 14 days after the certificate was issued or within such further time as the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Allmark v Eastern Guruma Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1564
Decision Date: 19 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Allmark, the applicant, applied to the Federal Circuit Court for an extension of time to file a general protections court application under the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, Eastern Guruma Pty Ltd, opposed the application. The applicant sought to file the application beyond the statutory time limit, arguing that the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had a sufficient justification for the delay in filing the application and whether granting an extension of time would be in the interests of justice.

The court examined the applicant's explanation for the delay, taking into account the principle that the statutory time limit for filing a general protections application is a strict limitation on the court's jurisdiction. The applicant had demonstrated that they were unaware of the need to file the application until a certain date and had acted promptly once they became aware. The court also considered the potential prejudice to the respondent if the extension was granted. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that granting the extension would not cause significant prejudice to the respondent. The court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension, allowing the applicant to file the application outside the statutory time limit.

The court ordered that the applicant be granted an extension of time to file the general protections court application, with specific conditions to ensure that the extension did not result in an undue advantage to the applicant or prejudice to the respondent. The applicant was directed to file the application within a specified period and to provide a detailed affidavit outlining the reasons for the delay and any steps taken to mitigate the impact of the delay. The respondent was also required to file a response to the application within a specified period. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the principles of justice and fairness when deciding whether to grant an extension of time in employment-related proceedings.

Orders