Legal Research
Cases
Isiaka Akinwande v Place Group Pty Ltd

Isiaka Akinwande v Place Group Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 1513

Jurisdiction

Limitation Periods

Extension of Time

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] FWC 1513

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Isiaka Akinwande
v

Place Group Pty Ltd

(C2025/3392)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 3 JUNE 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – jurisdictional objection – application out of time – extension of time granted

In accordance with the power under section 366 (2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) I have determined that I am satisfied for reasons given in transcript that there are exceptional circumstances justifying a further period of two days for the filing of application C2025/3392 and the application for an extension of time is granted.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Isiaka Akinwande v Place Group Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1513
Case: [2025] FWC 1513
Decision Date: 3 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Isiaka Akinwande sought relief against Place Group Pty Ltd for alleged contraventions involving his dismissal, under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute came before the Fair Work Commission, with Commissioner Simpson presiding over the matter. Akinwande argued that his dismissal was unlawful and sought remedies for the contraventions involved.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the application was filed within the requisite time frame and whether exceptional circumstances justified an extension of time for filing the application. The Commission had to determine if the application, which was lodged beyond the statutory period, could still be entertained due to extenuating factors.

Commissioner Simpson found that the application, though out of time, could be accepted due to exceptional circumstances. The Commission was satisfied, based on the provided evidence, that there were compelling reasons for the delay in filing the application. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was granted, allowing the case to proceed despite the procedural default.

The final orders of the Commission included the acceptance of the application for an extension of time, permitting the case to move forward. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of considering exceptional circumstances in procedural matters, ensuring that justice is not hindered by mere technicalities.

Orders