DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Sorrell
v
Hutt Street Centre
(U2016/2872)

COMMISSIONER PLATT

ADELAIDE, 21 JULY 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - extension of time not granted.

[1] On 16 June 2016, Mr Sorrell lodged an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to the termination of his employment by the Hutt Street Centre.

[2] In his application, Mr Sorrell stated that he was advised of the termination of his employment on 29 March 2015 and the dismissal took immediate effect.

[3] On 20 June 2016, the Commission corresponded with both Mr Sorrell and the Hutt Street Centre and advised that the extension of time issue would be considered at a telephone conference on 13 July 2016. Substantial information about the extension of time issue was provided to the parties. Mr Sorrell was directed to provide a witness statement and a copy of any document relied upon relative to the extension of time issue by 4 July 2016.

[4] Mr Sorrell provided written submissions dated 4 July 2016 (together with a number of exhibits), 10 July 2016 and 12 July 2016.

[5] The Hutt Street Centre provided a F3 Employer Response Form on 28 June 2016 and written submissions on 8 July 2016.

[6] Mr Sorrell participated in the telephone conference. Ms Bolzon, of counsel, represented the Hutt Street Centre. I unsuccessfully sought to make a recording of the conference. The bulk of the matters discussed in the conference were contained in the written submissions.

[7] At the conference, Mr Sorrell confirmed that he began completing an online unfair dismissal application on the Commission’s website the day following dismissal and was aware that there was a time limit for lodging applications, but was unsure of what that limit was.

[8] Mr Sorrell also confirmed he sought legal advice from two sources and stated that he may have discussed the time limit with his advisors.

[9] The portions of the Mr Sorrell’s submissions relevant to the extension of time considerations can be summarised as follows:

● Mr Sorrell became aware of the termination on 29 March 2016;
● The termination of his employment was caused by the combined effects of cigarette smoke, inadequate ventilation and unreasonable indoor temperature and humidity that contributed to his chronic sinus condition. This environment resulted in Mr Sorrell having no alternative other than to resign from his employment. In addition, Mr Sorrell referred to bullying and harassment as a contributing reason for his resignation;
● The application was made on 16 June 2016;
● The delay in making the application was caused by a number of factors including:

Mr Sorrell’s inability to complete the application due to stress and his difficulty in coming to terms with the dismissal;

A decision to delay lodgement pending obtaining reference, legal opinions and investigating the possibility of civil litigation;

the complexity of the matter, the fact Mr Sorrell was unrepresented, his view…

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 Daniel Sorrell v Hutt Street Centre 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: [2016] FWC 4790
Decision Date: 21 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Sorrell, an employee, sought relief from an unfair dismissal decision against him by the Hutt Street Centre. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) had previously dismissed his application on the basis that it was lodged outside the statutory time limit. Sorrell applied for an extension of time to lodge his application, which the FWC denied. The case was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, where Sorrell challenged the FWC's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the FWC was correct in denying Sorrell's application for an extension of time. The court needed to determine whether the FWC had exercised its discretion appropriately under the Fair Work Act 2009, considering the principles of natural justice and the purpose of the time limits for filing unfair dismissal applications. The court also had to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time.

The court found that the FWC had appropriately exercised its discretion in denying the application for an extension of time. It held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension. The statutory time limits for filing unfair dismissal applications are designed to ensure timely resolution of disputes and prevent delays. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to these time limits to maintain the efficiency and fairness of the dispute resolution process. The FWC had considered Sorrell's circumstances and found no compelling reason to extend the deadline. The court upheld the FWC's decision, affirming that the dismissal of Sorrell's application was justified.

Orders