Kuot v Maxlife Care Pty Ltd - [2025] FedCFamC2G 517

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Kuot v Maxlife Care Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 517

File number(s): SYG 378 of 2025

Judgment of: JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

Date of judgment: 11 April 2025

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW - Application pursuant to s 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for extension of time within which to make a general protections court application based on dismissal from employment – whether applicant has given adequate explanation for delay – whether applicant has meritorious claim if extension granted – whether otherwise appropriate to grant extension – extension refused.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 12, 340, 341, 342, 351, 360, 361, 365, 368, 370, 385, 387

Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 30.05

Cases cited:
Alam v National Australia Bank Limited [2021] FCAFC 178

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall [2018] FCAFC 83

Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [2012] HCA 32

Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Limited (1995) 67 IR 298

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Quirk [2023] FCAFC 163

Cummins South Pacific Pty Ltd v Keenan [2020] FCAFC 204

Dorsch v HEAD Oceania Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 162

El-Hajje v Rissalah College Limited [2022] FedCFamC2G 260

Henry v Leighton Admin Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] FCCA 1923

Qantas Airways Limited v Transport Workers Union of Australia [2023] HCA 27

Shea v TRUenergy Services Pty Ltd (No 6) [2014] FCA 271

Toki v All Class Training Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 566

Division: Fair Work

Number of paragraphs: 51

Date of hearing: 2 April 2025

Place: Sydney

The Applicant: Appeared in person, by video

Solicitor for the Respondent: Bull Son & Schmidt
ORDERS

SYG 378 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
AYIIK AKOIK KUOT

Applicant

AND:
MAXLIFE CARE PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

DATE OF ORDER:

11 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application for an order extending the 14 day period provided for by s 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is dismissed.
2.The proceeding be listed for a directions hearing at 9.30 am on 24 April 2025.

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 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

The respondent (MCPL) provides services to persons with disabilities. These include accommodation with associated 24 hours care.
On 1 December 2021 the applicant, Mr Kuot, commenced employment with MCPL as a disability support worker. In August 2024 MCPL promoted…

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 Kuot v Maxlife Care 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 517
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kuot applied for an extension of time to make a general protections court application based on dismissal from employment. The application was pursuant to section 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The primary issue before the court was whether Kuot had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application. Additionally, the court needed to determine if Kuot had a meritorious claim if the extension was granted and whether it was otherwise appropriate to extend the time limit.

The court considered the reasons provided by Kuot for the delay in filing the application. It was noted that the applicant had experienced significant personal and health challenges, which had impacted their ability to timely pursue legal action. However, the court found that the delay was not adequately explained and that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in pursuing their legal rights. Furthermore, the court assessed the merits of the claim and found that there were significant doubts about the applicant's prospects of success if the extension was granted. In light of these considerations, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to extend the time limit for filing the application.

The court refused the application for an extension of time, and no further orders were made. The applicant was left to consider their options for pursuing the claim within the existing timeframe or potentially seeking alternative remedies.

Orders