Delan Adikari v Clinical Laboratories Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 587

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Delan Adikari
v

Clinical Laboratories Pty Ltd

(C2025/133)

COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA

MELBOURNE, 26 FEBRUARY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

For the reasons given on transcript earlier today, I was not satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed that would allow Mr Adikari to file his application for a general protections dispute involving dismissal out of time.

In summary, Mr Adikari resigned on 17 December 2024 with immediate effect. He confirmed this date as his resignation in subsequent correspondence. I found that the 17 December 2024 date was the date he ceased working for Clinical Laboratories Pty Ltd (the Company) and not the 19 December 2024 date as purported in the application and the date on a letter from the Company. Accordingly, the application was 2 days out of time. Mr Adikari’s Counsel submitted that his reasons for the delay included confusion about the date when his employment ceased, medical reasons and the interval of the Christmas period. All other factors in s.366(2)(b) to (e) were treated as neutral considerations. Not being satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances, there was no basis for me to allow an extension of time.

An order to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Delan Adikari versus Clinical Laboratories Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the validity of an application filed by Mr Adikari alleging dismissal in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was deemed to be out of time, as it was submitted two days after the statutory deadline for filing such applications. Mr Adikari argued that exceptional circumstances justified the delay, citing confusion over the date of his resignation, medical reasons, and the Christmas period as factors contributing to the delay. The Commission, however, found that these reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances as defined under the Act, thereby rejecting the application on procedural grounds.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether exceptional circumstances existed that would permit an extension of the time limit for filing Mr Adikari's application. The Commission had to weigh the arguments presented by Mr Adikari's counsel against the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the reasons provided for the delay were compelling enough to warrant an exception under section 366(2) of the Act. The decision hinged on the interpretation of 'exceptional circumstances' and whether the circumstances presented by Mr Adikari met this threshold.

The Commission found that the reasons provided by Mr Adikari did not constitute exceptional circumstances as per the statutory definition. The Commission noted that Mr Adikari had confirmed his resignation date in subsequent correspondence, which differed from the date stated in the application and a letter from the company. Despite the submissions made by Mr Adikari’s counsel regarding the confusion over the resignation date, medical reasons, and the holiday period, the Commission concluded that these factors did not sufficiently justify the delay in filing the application. The Commission further observed that all other factors considered under section 366(2)(b) to (e) of the Act were neutral, reinforcing its decision not to extend the time limit. Consequently, the application was dismissed for being out of time.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order dismissing the application on the grounds that it was filed two days beyond the statutory deadline and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an extension. The order reflects the Commission's determination that the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act were not met, and thus, Mr Adikari's application was not considered on its merits.

Delan Adikari v Clinical Laboratories Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established