Katica Racanovic v MQ Health Pty Limited, Walter Kmet
[2025] FWC 415
•12 FEBRUARY 2025
| [2025] FWC 415 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections
Katica Racanovic
v
MQ Health Pty Limited, Walter Kmet
(C2024/6730)
| COMMISSIONER MATHESON | SYDNEY, 12 FEBRUARY 2025 |
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal
Katica Racanovic (Applicant) has made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) alleging she was dismissed in contravention of the general protections provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act. MQ Health Pty Limited (First Respondent) and Walter Kmet (Second Respondents) are the respondents to the application.
Section 366(1) of the Act provides that an application under s.365 must be made:
(a)within 21 days after the dismissal took effect; or
(b)within such further period as the Commission allows under s.366(2) of the Act.
The Applicant was dismissed on 9 July 2024. The 21 day period ended on 30 July 2024. The application was lodged on 23 September 2024, outside of the 21 day period. The Applicant therefore requires an extension of time if the application is to proceed.
Section 366(2) of the Act provides that the Commission may allow a further period if it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances taking into account:
(a)the reason for the delay; and
(b)any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
(c)prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(d)the merits of the application; and
(e)fairness between the person and other persons in a like position.
Hearing
The matter was listed for a case management hearing on 23 October 2024 and directions in the matter were issued after hearing from the parties. Directions in the matter were set down that day and the matter was set down for hearing n 10 December 2024.
At 8.39pm on 9 December 2024, the night prior to the hearing, the Applicant sent an email stating:
she was receiving compensation from WorkCover for a psychological injury sustained while employed at MQ Health;
she was self-represented against an organisation that employs a full-time legal team; and
the situation was exacerbating the stress she was experiencing due to her fragile mental health.
The Applicant requested that the matter be ‘adjourned until further notice’, pending an improvement in her mental health. Given the late notice for the adjournment request, noting that the hearing was dealing with the discrete issue as to whether an extension of time for the making of an application should be granted and given the absence of medical evidence of the Applicant’s inability to participate in the hearing, the Commission emailed the parties advising that the hearing would proceed as listed.
The Applicant did not attend the hearing on 10 December 2024 but sent a ‘Certificate of capacity/certificate of fitness’ for use with workers compensation claims which stated:
the Applicant had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety;
the date of injury was 10 April 2024; and
that she had no capacity for any work between 17 November 2024 and 14 December 2024.
Following the hearing on 10 December 2024 the Commission wrote to the Applicant indicating that:
the Applicant’s injury appears to be a long term injury extending back to April 2024, a period of eight months;
it was unclear as to how long the Applicant would seek that the matter be adjourned;
the end of year/new year period is a peak period for the Commission and this impacts the availability of listing times as there are a large volume of other matters before the Commission; and
while the certificate of capacity indicated that the Applicant had no capacity to work, it did not necessarily mean that the Applicant was unable to participate in proceedings relating to the application she made in September 2024 after becoming injured in April.
It was noted that the Applicant did not attend the hearing and the Commission proposed that to avoid further inconvenience to the parties and delay the matter would be determined based on the material before it without the need for further hearing dates to be listed. The views of the parties were sought.
The Applicant did not respond by the time required and the Commission followed up via email on 16 December 2024 and 30 December 2024. The Applicant responded on 30 December stating:
“My views are to give me the outcome that I requested in my application. MQ Health are unethical. Google Walter Kmet and you will see his dodgy dealings from the past. He brings his energy business dealings wherever he goes.
That's my view!”
As the Applicant did not attend the hearing as directed and having regard to the above response, the Commission indicated it would be issuing a determination in relation to the question as to whether an extension of time should be granted based on the material before it to which the Applicant replied:
“No. Do not issue a determination.
FWC took 3 months to reply to me to tell me that I need to lodge under general protections and not under unfair dismissal. FWC should also have contacted me within 21 days as you made that rule and didn't adhere to it.
Just tell them that you will accept my reasons since FWC is ruling and FWC made the mistake.
They need to stop their toxic work environment and the only way they will care is when it hits their hip pocket.
They claim they are a not for profit, then I sat in a union meeting at the hospital and it was disclosed that the not for profit made a profit of 4 million the financial year prior.
Completely dodgy on all levels!”
The Commission is unable to grant the outcome that the Applicant is seeking in her application as she requests at this stage. As noted above the issue for determination currently before the Commission is the question of whether it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account the matters in s.366(2) of the Act, such that an extension of time should be granted.
If an extension of time is granted, a conference would follow whereby the Commission would likely assist the parties in trying to resolve the dispute by mediation or conciliation. If the Commission was then satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute (other than by arbitration) had been, or were likely to be, unsuccessful, then the Commission would be required to issue a certificate to that effect.[1] The Applicant would then need to decide whether to make a general protections court application or, if the parties agreed, they could notify the Commission that they agree to the Commission arbitrating the dispute.
Section 577 of the Act requires that the Commission perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that:
(a)is fair and just; and
(b)is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities; and
(c)is open and transparent; and
(d)promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.
The restrictions referred to in the Applicant’s ‘certificate of capacity/certificate of fitness’ provided to the Commission do not establish that the Applicant was incapable of participating in the hearing on 10 December 2024. In order to avoid further inconvenience and delay in determining the discrete issue before the Commission, being whether an extension of time should be granted, I have determined the matter based on the materials currently before the Commission.
Section 366(2)(a) - the reason for the delay
Applicant’s submissions and evidence
The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent on 15 January 2024[2] and was dismissed during her probationary period[3] on 9 July 2024.[4] This is a period less than 6 months which means that the Applicant did not complete the minimum period of employment prescribed by s.383 of the Act in order to be protected from unfair dismissal under the Act.
In response to question 1.5 of the Form F8 application, which asks why the application is being lodged late, the Applicant stated:
“I lodged another form. The one for unfair dismissal. I was called on Friday the 20 September by a FWC representative informing me I need to fill out this form instead as they could not doing (sic) anything to help me with the other form.”
The unfair dismissal application was lodged on 29 July 2024. That same day the Applicant received an email from the Commission stating, among other things:
‘If you have lodged an application we will endeavour to contact you with your case number within 7 business days. Normally we would contact you within 3 business days, but we are currently receiving a large number of applications’.
The Applicant said that on Friday 20 September 2024 she received a call from a staff member of the Commission who informed her, by way of summary, that:
she was ineligible to make an unfair dismissal application;
she had to discontinue that application and ‘lodge under general protections’;
she still had to lodge the application within 21 days from her dismissal; and
even though 21 days had passed the Applicant could still lodge an application and it was a case-by case basis as to whether a late application would be accepted.[5]
The Applicant said:
“While my submission was late, it was not because I did not submit on time. It was submitted on time. FWC took a long time to get back to me to inform me to relodge under the correct category.”[6]
The Applicant discontinued her unfair dismissal application on 20 September 2024 and submitted her general protections application on 23 September 2024.
The Applicant appears to attribute causation to:
the Commission taking ‘a long time to get back to [her] to inform her to relodge under the correct category’; and
her sustaining a psychological injury at work which meant she was ‘not functioning at [her] highest level’ and which made it ‘extremely difficult to undertake basis tasks such as following up [her] initial lodgement’ of her claim.[7]
Respondent’s submissions
The Respondent disputes that the application was ‘submitted on time’ as stated by the Applicant and submits that it was a different application that was made on 29 July 2024, being an unfair dismissal application.
Notwithstanding this, the Respondent summarised its understanding of the Applicant’s reasons for the delay as being:
that she made a different application (for unfair dismissal) on time;
the Commission’s registry later informed her that her unfair dismissal application could not be accepted; and
the Applicant, having had her unfair dismissal application rejected, sought to lodge a general protections application in the alternative, being the present application.[8]
In respect of s.366(2)(a) the Respondent submitted, by way of summary, that these reasons do not give rise to there being exceptional circumstances that warrant an extension of time, including because:
every prospective applicant in the Commission must consider which application is most appropriate to their circumstances and this is the usual experience of someone in the Applicant’s position;
it is a matter for the Applicant to determine which cause (or causes) are available to her and take steps to pursue actions appropriate to her circumstances and the Applicant failed to do so, including by lodging an unfair dismissal application and not by lodging a general protections application;
the general protections and unfair dismissal jurisdictions operate separately and one is not available as an alternative to the other;
the Commission cannot and does not provide legal advice nor advise as to which applications may, or should, be pursued by a prospective applicant;
the Applicant could have, but did not, seek professional advice regarding the cause or causes available to her;
the Applicant’s decision to lodge an unfair dismissal application was not based on practitioner error and nor did it arise from inaccurate advice;[9]
the Applicant made the decision to lodge an unfair dismissal application despite their being clear information on the Commission’s website that assists prospective applicants in checking their eligibility for unfair dismissal protection;[10] and
the Applicant made the decision to not loge a general protections application despite there being a clear indication that an application must be made within 21 days of the dismissal taking effect.[11]
Consideration
The reason for the delay is not in itself required to be an exceptional circumstance. It is one of the factors that must be weighed in assessing whether, overall, there are exceptional circumstances.[12] The Act does not specify what reason for delay might tell in favour of granting an extension. However, decisions of the Commission have referred to an acceptable or reasonable explanation.
I consider it unlikely that the Commission staff would have told the Applicant that she had filled in the ‘wrong form’ and told her to ‘lodge under general protections’. The Commission does not give legal advice to parties. It seems more likely that:
the Commission staff told her, as was appropriate, that based on the information in her application she had not met the minimum employment and as such was not a person protected from unfair dismissal;
there was a discussion about what other types of dismissal claims did not present such a barrier to the making of an application; and
information was provided about general protections applications.
As noted above, the Applicant pointed to the existence of a psychological injury she sustained at work which meant she was ‘not functioning at [her] highest level’ and which made it ‘extremely difficult to undertake basis tasks such as following up [her] initial lodgement’ of her claim. Among the documents filed by the Applicant with her application were:
a medical certificate dated 4 July 2024, covering the period between 4 July 2024 and 22 July 2024, and which indicates that the Applicant has a medical condition, would be unfit for work, was undergoing significant stress, required stress leave, had seen a psychologist and was pending psychiatry input;
a certificate of capacity covering the same period and which indicates that the Applicant had no work capacity for any employment from 7 July 2024 and 22 July 2024; and
a psychology report dated 11 September 2025, which would appear to be intended as a reference to 11 September 2024. This report indicates that based on the information disclosed by the Applicant during treatment, the treating psychologist considered that the Applicant’s symptoms were consistent with a major depressive episode directly related to treatment in her workplace and that her ability work had been significantly affected by characteristic symptoms of major depressive episode such as fatigue and loss of energy and motivation.
The Applicant also filed a letter from icare indicating that the Applicant’s injury management plan had been updated.
Where there is medical evidence that some condition affected an applicant in such a way as to cause, contribute or explain the delay, such evidence may, depending on all the circumstances, weigh in favour of the Commission being satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.[13] However, each case turns on its own facts. There are no categories of illness or disability that will automatically result in the Commission being satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.[14]
I accept that the Applicant has a psychological injury however the Applicant was able to make an application to the Commission and did so in making an unfair dismissal application. I am not persuaded based on the materials before the Commission that her injury or illness was such that it impeded her capacity to make a general protections application. Further, the evidence does not establish that, at the time of filing her unfair dismissal application, the Applicant intended to make a general protections application. In fact, question 1.7 of the Form F2 -Unfair dismissal application expressly asks “Have you made another claim to the Commission or to any other organisation regarding your dismissal (e.gg a general protections application)?” and the Applicant has answered “no” to this question. The Applicant also referred to being “unfairly dismissed” in her unfair dismissal application. It is apparent that the reason for the delay is that the Applicant lodged an application for unfair dismissal remedy, being unaware that she was not a person protected from unfair dismissal, and then decided to file a general protections application after learning of the existence of another type of dismissal application that does not require the satisfaction of a minimum employment period. Ignorance of the law, including in relation to eligibility to make an application, does not constitute an acceptable or reasonable explanation for the delay. The reason for the delay weighs against a finding of exceptional circumstances.
Section 366(b) - any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal
In addressing s.366(b) the Respondent submitted that whilst the filing of an unfair dismissal application constitutes an action taken to dispute the dismissal, this is not sufficient, in the circumstances to support a finding that exceptional circumstances exist[15] including because the Applicant did not take reasonable steps to address or mitigate the delay between the making of her unfair dismissal application and the general protections application.[16] In this regard the Respondent submitted that:
in her ‘Statement’ the Applicant acknowledged that she was on notice to expect a reply from the Commission within seven business days but made no effort to make enquiries with the Commission after the passing of this time nor a considerably longer time;
whether an application is (or is not suitable) is easily ascertained from information available on the Commission’s website; and
the Applicant had a considerable period of time within which she might reasonably have become aware, including via information available on the Commission website, the Workplace Advice Service and/or legal advice, that the general protections jurisdiction might have been relevant to her.[17]
The Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application and in doing so, took action to dispute her dismissal. The filing of the unfair dismissal application and the current application appears to be the only action that she took to dispute the dismissal.
Section 366(c) - prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay)
The Respondent submitted that:
· it has a right to arrange its affairs and utilise its resources on the basis that claims can no longer be made against them, following the expiry of a tight filing deadline;[18]
· given the expiry of the deadline occurred significantly before the application was filed, the Respondent submits that it has and was well entitled to proceed on the basis that the Applicant could not and would not make a claim against it under s.365 of the Act or otherwise in connection with the employment relationship;[19]
· the Applicant did not provide it with notice of her intention to file an application or that she objected to, or intended to dispute her dismissal and the first notice of any dispute relating to the dismissal was not received until 2 October 2024;[20]and
· to allow such a significant extension of time, being 55 days, would cause significant prejudice to the Respondent’s entitlements to make relevant assumptions and go about its ordinary business.[21]
Whilst I accept that the Respondent is likely to be inconvenienced having to defend a claim brought against it, I am not persuaded that the Respondent would suffer any prejudice by granting an extension of time. A lack of prejudice to the employer does not necessarily weigh in favour of concluding that exceptional circumstances exist.[22] I assess this to be a neutral consideration.
Section 366(d) - the merits of the application
The Applicant has filed a considerable amount of material with the Commission dealing with the merits of her application. By way of summary, the Applicant’s sets out the following timeline of events in the materials she has filed:
The Applicant commenced working with the Respondent on 15 January 2024 as a Registered nurse[23] and was the subject of a six month probationary period.[24]
The Applicant was placed in the ENT and Ophthalmology ward under the supervision of the Nurse Unit Manager (Ophthalmology NUM).[25]
The Ophthalmology NUM decided that the Applicant would be subject to a mid-probation review but did not provide an agenda for the meeting, invite the Applicant to bring a support person nor provide reasonable notice.[26]
During the meeting the Ophthalmology NUM provided negative feedback about the Applicant’s performance and the Applicant considered these to be minor things that did not impact patient safety.[27]
The outcome of the meeting was that the Applicant would be ‘supernumerary’ which the Applicant said had the effect that she would be learning with someone always with her as she undertook her duties.[28]
The Ophthalmology NUM followed up with an email setting out her expectations[29] and in the body of that email indicated that she wanted the Applicant to know what instruments the surgeon will want before they asked for them.[30] The Applicant suggests its is difficult to pre-empt what the surgeon will want because things don’t go to plan.[31]
The Applicant was transferred to the Cardiac unit by the Operating Theatre Manager[32] and was under the supervision of another Nurse Unit Manager (Cardiac NUM).[33]
The Applicant alleges that the Cardiac NUM was unpleasant towards her because she had an incident with another nurse who reported the incident, and he would not listen to her side of the story.[34]
The Applicant became upset and went home, and when she returned the following Monday started crying because she did not want to be in theatre with the Cardiac NUM.[35] After one hour she felt better and went to the theatre where the Cardiac NUM was.[36]
A meeting was held to understand why the Applicant was crying in theatre, there was a discussion about the issue with the other nurse and interaction with the Cardiac NUM but there was no outcome[37] and the Applicant was later told she was unprofessional.[38]
The Applicant considered the Cardiac NUM was micro-managing her and if he saw her talking to anyone, he would question her.[39] The Applicant also believed the Cardiac NUM was unhappy with her work but did not recall him providing examples as to why her work was not to his satisfaction.[40]
A meeting took place in which the Cardiac NUM outlined expectations of the Applicant and indicated that she would be supernumerary for two weeks and after that would have to be able to do complex cases after hours.[41]
On 3 May 2024, after theatre concluded, the Cardiac NUM told the Applicant that he could not give her night shifts because she did not know how to scrub or scout however the Applicant indicated that she had been assessed her as being able do these tasks and was doing them for three months before her transfer to the Cardiac unit.[42] The Applicant said that the Cardiac NUM took the applicant off these shifts so he could take away her penalty rates.[43]
The Applicant said that after the Cardiac NUM asked her restock fluids, another nurse instructed her as to how to do this and she considered this nurse belittled her.[44]
The Applicant also said she asked the Floor Manager and Floor Coordinator not to make her work with the Cardiac NUM, that the Cardiac NUM had asked her to fill the trolley and when she did this he was ‘waiting to rip into [her]’.[45] It is unclear precisely what actions are intended to be captured by this expression.
The Applicant went to court to apply for an apprehended personal violence order (APVO) and also reported concerns to police who advised they were unable to do anything.[46]
The Applicant said the next day she told the Respondent’s Floor Coordinator that if she made her work with the Cardiac NUM, she would call the police and also told her about the APVO she was seeking.[47]
Human Resources became involved and told the Applicant that she would be placed elsewhere while an investigation was conducted.[48]
The Applicant was offered Endoscopy however the Applicant says she was “put in a position that’s not a position” and was required to do the paperwork an anaesthetic nurse would normally do.[49]
The Applicant made a complaint of bullying with the work health and safety regulator on 6 May 2024. [50]
The Applicant said the investigation outcome communicated to her was that there were “different learning styles” however the Applicant does not consider that the investigation was thorough.[51]
The Applicant eventually raised her concerns with the Respondent’s CEO Walter Kmet.[52]
The Applicant was told during a meeting with the Endoscopy NUM that she was having difficulties. [53] The Applicant considered these to be minor and formed the view that the Respondent was going to terminate her employment.[54]
The Applicant sought medical treatment and provided a copy of a certificate of capacity to the Respondent on 8 July 2024.[55]
The Applicant considers that she was bullied at work[56] and attributes her illness to this.[57]
The Applicant was dismissed on 9 July 2024.[58]
In her application the Applicant alleges contraventions of Part 3-1 of the Act and in particular ss. 340, 341 and 343 and indicates that she believes she was dismissed because she was being bullied, was not assisted by her Respondent, went to court to apply for an AVPO and sought police assistance and was dismissed when she informed the Respondent that she did this.
In the Respondent’s response to the application it indicates:
The Applicant reported to the Ears, Nose and Throat Nurse Unit Manager (Ears, Nose and Throat NUM) upon her commencement.
The Ears, Nose and Throat NUM formed concerns about the Applicant’s performance, met with the Applicant to discuss the concerns and where further support or guidance could be provided and summarised this in an email to the Applicant on 9 April (which was attached to the response).
The Applicant informed the Associate Director, Perioperative Services, that she found the Ears, Nose and Throat NUM difficult to work with and the Applicant was moved to the Cardiac unit reporting to the Cardiac NUM.
On 7 May 2024 the Applicant submitted a workplace complaint relating to the Cardiac NUM, alleging that his behaviour constituted bullying, and requested that she not report to him.
On 8 May 2024, at the Applicant’s request, the Respondent moved the Applicant out of the Cardiac unit and changed her reporting line to the Endoscopy Nurse Unit Manager (Endoscopy NUM) while the complaint was assessed.
Assessment of the complaint determined no findings of bullying however it was evidence that there was a disconnect between what the Cardiac NUM and Applicant believed was expected of a first year Registered Nurse and how performance feedback and improvements should be addressed and supported.
On 22 May 2024 the outcome was discussed with the Applicant and it was confirmed that she would report to the Endoscopy NUM on a permanent basis.
On 23 May 2024 a meeting was held between the Applicant, Endoscopy NUM, Clinical Nurse Educator and Associate Director, Perioperative Services, to discuss ongoing performance concerns and a structured development and support plan to assist the Applicant in improving her performance to the required standard.
Meetings to discuss performance concerns, required improvements and additional support were held with the Applicant on 11, 20 and 26 June 2024 and performance concerns were summarised via email to the Applicant on 21 and 27 June 2024 by the Endoscopy NUM.
The Respondent scheduled meetings with the Applicant to discuss performance concerns and inform her of the outcome of her probation review but these meetings were cancelled by the Applicant.
On 9 July the Respondent issued the Applicant with a letter confirming its decision to terminate the Applicant’s employment.
In its response to the application the Respondent:
denied it had engaged in adverse action in contravention of ss. 340, 341 and 343 of the Act; and
submits that the Applicant was dismissed during her probationary period on the sole basis that she was unable to perform the role to the standard required.
The Respondent submitted that the substantive application is without merit, including because the substantial and operative reason for the Applicant’s dismissal was her unsatisfactory performance[59] and the fact that she had raised a workplace complaint was unrelated to and did not factor into the decision to terminate her employment.[60]
Having examined the materials filed in this matter to date, it is evident that there is a contest of facts concerning the reasons for dismissal and that findings of fact regarding this will be dependent on the evidence that would need to be tested in a hearing dealing with the substantive merits of the application. I am unable make any firm assessment of the merits of the application at this stage and consider the merits to be a neutral consideration.
Section 366(e) - fairness between the person and other persons in a like position.
The Respondent submitted that there are no persons in a like position and this is a neutral consideration.[61]
The Applicant did not make submissions dealing with s.366(e) and I assess this to be a neutral consideration.
Conclusion
I must now consider whether I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account my findings regarding:
(a) the reasons for the delay, being that the Applicant filed an unfair dismissal application and upon learning that she was not a person protected from unfair dismissal, decided to make a general protections application;
(b) the action taken by the Applicant to dispute the dismissal prior to making the application;
(c) the absence of any prejudice to the employer;
(d) the merits of the application being unable to be determined ahead of a hearing of the evidence in relation to substantive merits of the application; and
(e) no issue of fairness arising as between the Applicant and other persons in a similar position.
Exceptional circumstances are circumstances that are out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon but the circumstances themselves do not need to be unique nor unprecedented, nor even very rare.[62] Exceptional circumstances may include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors, or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together can be considered exceptional.[63] I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances after considering the above matters individually as well as in combination.
Having regard to all of the matters at s.366(2) of the Act, I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances and as such there is no basis for the Commission to allow an extension of time.
Order
The application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act..
COMMISSIONER
[1] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.368(3).
[2] Applicant’s Statement attached to Form F2 Application at [16].
[3] Applicant’s Statement attached to Form F2 Application at [9].
[4] Applicant’s Statement attached to Form F2 Application at [71].
[5] Applicant’s Statement.
[6] Applicant’s Statement.
[7] Applicant’s Statement.
[8] Respondent’s Submissions at [21].
[9] Respondent’s Submissions at [22].
[10] Respondent’s Submissions at [22] with reference to Check eligibility for unfair dismissal | Fair Work Commission.
[11] Respondent’s Submissions at [22] with reference to .
[12] Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd [2018] FWCFB 901, [39].
[13] Becke v Edenvale Manor Aged Care[2014] FWCFB 6809, [9].
[14] Ellikuttige v Moonee Valley Racing Club Inc[2018] FWCFB 4988, [31]; Weir v Hydro-Chem Pty Ltd [2017] FWCFB 758, [37].
[15] Respondent’s Submissions at [24].
[16] Respondent’s Submissions at [27].
[17] Respondent’s Submissions at [27].
[18] Respondent’s Submissions at [29].
[19] Respondent’s Submissions at [30].
[20] Respondent’s Submissions at [31].
[21] Respondent’s Submissions at [33].
[22] Miller v DPV Health Ltd (Hume)[2019] FWCFB 6890, [21].
[23] Applicant’s Form F8 Application; Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [9].
[24] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [21].
[25]Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [9].
[26] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [22].
[27] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [23].
[28] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [24].
[29] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [24].
[30] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [25].
[31] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [25].
[32] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [30].
[33] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [31].
[34] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [33].
[35] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [37].
[36] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [37].
[37] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [39].
[38] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [39].
[39] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [40].
[40] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [40].
[41] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [42].
[42] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [45].
[43] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [43].
[44] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [46].
[45] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [48].
[46] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [50]; Applicant’s Form F8 Application..
[47] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [52].
[48] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [54].
[49] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [55].
[50] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [55].
[51] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [57].
[52] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [61].
[53] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [62].
[54] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [62].
[55] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [71].
[56] Applicant’s Form F8 Application.
[57] Applicant’s Statement filed with Application at [74].
[58] Applicant’s Form F8 Application.
[59] Respondent’s Submissions at [35].
[60] Respondent’s Submissions at [36].
[61] Respondent’s Submissions at [38].
[62] Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd[2011] FWAFB 975, [13].
[63] Ibid.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR784280>
0
5
0