Fenton-Jones v Haidar

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Judge Manousaridis considered an application by Ms Fenton-Jones (the applicant) for leave to substitute a new respondent, her employer, in proceedings alleging contraventions of sections 340(1), 343, and 351 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). These claims had initially been brought against an individual who was not Ms Fenton-Jones's employer. The application to substitute the employer was made more than 14 days after the Fair Work Commission issued a certificate under section 368(3)(a) of the *Fair Work Act* concerning a prior application to deal with the dispute.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the application to substitute the employer constituted an application for an extension of time under section 370(a)(ii) of the *Fair Work Act* to make a general protections court application against the employer. Further, the court had to determine if the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the application against the employer, whether she had a meritorious case if an extension were granted, and if it was otherwise appropriate to grant such an extension.

Judge Manousaridis reasoned that the application to substitute the employer was indeed an application for an extension of time. The court found that the applicant had not provided a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in bringing the claim against her employer. Consequently, the court determined that it was not appropriate to grant an extension of time.

Accordingly, the application to substitute the employer as a respondent was dismissed, and the original application brought against the individual who admitted not to be the employer was also dismissed.