Legal Research
Cases
Brooke Kay v Brodribb Home

Brooke Kay v Brodribb Home

Case [2024] FWC 1722

Unfair Dismissal

Standing

Limitation Periods

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2024] FWC 1722

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Brooke Kay
v

Brodribb Home

(U2024/5827)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 1 JULY 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – extension of time – application dismissed.

For reasons recorded in transcript at the conclusion of the hearing of this matter today, I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. Therefore, no additional time can be granted for the Applicant to make an unfair dismissal application.

The application is dismissed and an order to that effect will be issued separately.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

B. Kay, the Applicant, appearing on her own behalf.
Mrs Chipperfield, appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2024,
1 July.
Video Hearing.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Brooke Kay v Brodribb Home [2024] FWC 1722
Case: [2024] FWC 1722
Decision Date: 1 JULY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brooke Kay applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against her former employer, Brodribb Home, before the Fair Work Commission. The Applicant alleged that she had been unfairly dismissed and sought relief under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made outside the usual 21-day period, and therefore, required an extension of time to be heard. The Respondent opposed the application for an extension of time, arguing that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant such an extension.

The legal issue before the Deputy President was whether there were exceptional circumstances to grant the Applicant an extension of time to make her unfair dismissal application. The Deputy President needed to consider the relevant criteria under section 394(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which sets out the circumstances in which an extension of time may be granted. This included assessing the Applicant's reasons for the delay, the impact of the delay on the Respondent, and any other relevant factors.

In deciding the matter, the Deputy President found that the Applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. The Applicant's reasons for the delay were not compelling, and the delay had caused inconvenience to the Respondent. The Deputy President concluded that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed. Consequently, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was also dismissed, and an order to that effect will be issued separately.

Orders