Lee-Ann Johnson v Stylz Franchising Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCFB 9298

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions
Lee-Ann Johnson
v
Stylz Franchising Pty Ltd
(C2014/6869)
VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS	SYDNEY, 24 DECEMBER 2014

Appeal against decision PR556130 of Senior Deputy President Drake at Sydney on 1 October

2014 in matter number U2014/11129.

[1] This decision reproduces in edited form the decision and reasons which were stated on

transcript at the conclusion of the hearing conducted in relation to this matter on 18 December

2014.

[2] This is an appeal, for which permission to appeal is required, by Ms Lee-Ann Johnson

against a decision of Senior Deputy President Drake made on 1 October 2014 to refuse to

grant to Ms Johnson an extension of time to lodge an unfair dismissal remedy application.

The Senior Deputy President published her reasons for the decision on 27 October 2014.

[3] The appeal notice filed by Ms Johnson does not identify any appellable error in the

decision, but rather simple re-canvasses its merits. We note that the appeal was initiated

before the reasons for decision were published.

[4] Ms Johnson was required under the Commission’s Rules to file and serve an appeal
2

book within 7 days of initiating an appeal

. She has not done so.

[5] Under directions made on 28 October 2014, Ms Johnson was required by 20

November 2014 to file and serve an outline of submissions. She has not done so. Efforts by

the Commission’s officers to contact Ms Johnson concerning her failure to comply with these

obligations have been unsuccessful.

[6] Finally, she has failed to attend the hearing of her appeal this morning.
[7] Section 400(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides that the Commission must not

grant permission to appeal unless we consider that it is in the public interest to do so.
[2014] FWCFB 9298

[8] In the circumstances described, there is nothing before us which could enable us to

form the view that the grant of permission to appeal would be in the public interest.

[9] Permission to appeal is therefore refused.

VICE PRESIDENT

Appearances:

J. Cook on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2014.

Sydney:

18 December.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

[2014] FWC 7612

Rule 56(3) of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with an appeal by Lee-Ann Johnson against a decision made by Senior Deputy President Drake, who had previously refused to grant Johnson an extension of time to lodge an unfair dismissal remedy application. The appeal was heard by Vice President Hatcher, Senior Deputy President Hamberger, and Commissioner Roberts on 18 December 2014. The primary issue for the court was whether permission to appeal the earlier decision should be granted, considering the public interest criterion outlined in Section 400(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court found that Johnson's appeal notice did not specify any errors in the decision, but rather re-examined its merits. This was noted to have been initiated before the reasons for the decision were published. Furthermore, Johnson failed to meet several procedural requirements, including filing and serving an appeal book within the stipulated time frame, providing an outline of submissions, and attending the hearing. The Commission's attempts to contact Johnson regarding these procedural failures were unsuccessful.

In light of these procedural defaults and the absence of any compelling grounds for appeal, the court concluded that granting permission to appeal would not be in the public interest. Consequently, the court refused permission to appeal. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the court's discretion in determining whether an appeal aligns with the public interest.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established