Dominello and Linfox Australia Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time by Mr Dominello to challenge a reviewable decision made by Linfox Australia Pty Ltd on 24 July 2013, which affirmed an earlier decision denying liability for a psychological injury. Mr Dominello had initially been represented by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, who took no steps to challenge the decision. Subsequently, Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers were instructed, but despite being advised on the correct procedure to file an extension of time application, this was not done. Further claims were lodged, and Linfox repeatedly advised Mr Dominello of the need to apply for an extension of time. The failure to lodge the application was only identified by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers in December 2015, and Mr Dominello confirmed his instructions to proceed in April 2016, with the application ultimately being lodged on 28 April 2016.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Mr Dominello an extension of time to lodge his application for review. This required consideration of factors including the delay on the part of Mr Dominello's solicitors, whether Mr Dominello had rested on his rights, any prejudice to the respondent, and the prospects of success of the underlying claim.

The Tribunal, presided over by A Poljak SM, accepted that the responsibility for the delay lay with Mr Dominello's former solicitor. The Tribunal noted that delay on the part of a solicitor can be an acceptable explanation for a delay, referencing cases such as *Comcare v A’Hearn* and *Grundy and Comcare*. The Tribunal also considered *Zanbergs and Commonwealth Bank of Australia*, where considerable solicitor delay was accepted, and an extension was granted because the applicant's actions demonstrated an intention to proceed. While Linfox argued that it should be entitled to consider the claim finalised due to the repeated advice given to Mr Dominello's representatives that was not acted upon, the Tribunal found that the circumstances warranted granting the extension of time.