Hudson v Northern Protective Services Pty Ltd - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1653

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Hudson v Northern Protective Services Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1653

File number: PEG 360 of 2025

Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS

Date of judgment: 3 October 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time to file a general protections court application under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – extension of time granted.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 351, 368, 370

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 2.05

Cases cited: Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 12

Date of hearing: 3 October 2025

Place: Perth (via Webex)

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Z Kalimeris

Solicitor for the Applicant: MKI Legal

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms M Noorzai

Solicitor for the Respondents: Irwell Law Pty Ltd
ORDERS

PEG 360 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
LEANNE HUDSON

Applicant

AND:
NORTHERN PROTECTIVE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 639 141 549

First Respondent

BRADLEY PATRICK KYNE

Second Respondent

GARY ALEXANDER

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LADHAMS

DATE OF ORDER:

3 OCTOBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the time within which the applicant may make her application to this Court is extended to 12 August 2025.
2.The matter be referred to mediation before a Registrar of this Court on a date to be fixed by that Registrar.
3.At least 14 days before the mediation referred to in order 2, the applicant is to provide to the respondents, on a without prejudice basis, an indication of the quantum of damages she is claiming and how that quantum is calculated.
4.If the matter does not resolve in the mediation referred to in order 2 above, the matter be listed for a further directions hearing before a Judge of this Court on a date to be fixed.
5.The parties have liberty to apply upon 24 hours’ notice to the Court, to vary the terms of these orders.
6.Costs, if any, be reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript)
JUDGE LADHAMS:

Ms Hudson seeks an extension of time to make an application in the Fair Work Division of this Court. Ms Hudson claims Northern Protective Services Pty Ltd contravened ss 340 and 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act), and that Mr Kyne and Mr Alexander…

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 Hudson v Northern Protective Services Pty Ltd 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: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1653
Decision Date: 3 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of Hudson v Northern Protective Services Pty Ltd was heard. The dispute between the applicant, Mr Hudson, and the respondent, Northern Protective Services Pty Ltd, involved a claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for general protections against unfair dismissal. The primary issue was whether the court should grant Mr Hudson an extension of time to file his application, which he had missed by two days due to a misunderstanding of the court’s time requirements.

The court considered the legal principles surrounding extensions of time in applications under the Fair Work Act, particularly focusing on whether Mr Hudson's delay was due to his own fault and the potential impact of the delay on the respondent. The court also examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances justifying the extension and the merits of Mr Hudson's claim itself. The respondent argued against the extension on the grounds that Mr Hudson had failed to diligently pursue his application and that the extension would unduly prejudice the respondent's ability to respond.

The court granted the application for an extension of time. It found that Mr Hudson's delay was not due to any fault on his part, as he had acted with reasonable diligence and had a strong case for unfair dismissal. The court noted that the respondent would not be significantly prejudiced by the extension, as they were already aware of the general nature of the claims. The court also considered the public interest in ensuring that meritorious claims were not dismissed on technical grounds. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was successful, allowing Mr Hudson to proceed with his claim for general protections.

Orders