Keane and Decision Maker

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by an applicant who had lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission. The applicant sought to have the AAT review a decision made by a Fair Work Commission delegate, Commissioner Platt, who had dismissed the applicant's unfair dismissal application under section 587 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). This dismissal followed the employer's application to have the unfair dismissal application dismissed on the basis that a binding settlement agreement had been reached between the parties during conciliation before Commissioner Hampton. The applicant contended that no binding agreement was reached and sought the AAT's intervention to address his complaints about the Fair Work Commission's conduct and alleged procedural unfairness.

The primary legal issues before the AAT were whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge his appeal, and consequently, whether it had jurisdiction to hear the substantive appeal itself. The applicant's application for an extension of time was filed approximately 12 months after the relevant decision was made, significantly exceeding the 28-day time limit prescribed by section 29(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). The AAT was required to consider whether it had the power to grant an extension of time under section 29(7) of the AAT Act, which permits extensions where reasonable in all the circumstances, and if so, whether the substantive appeal could then be heard.

The AAT determined that it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's appeal. The AAT reasoned that the *Fair Work Act* does not confer any power upon the AAT to review decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. Consequently, the AAT had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the substantive application for review. As the AAT could not hear the substantive application, it concluded that any application for an extension of time to lodge such an application was futile. Therefore, it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the application for an extension of time.

The application for an extension of time was refused.