Lim v Flinders University of South Australia

Dr Lim appealed against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissing her application for relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The primary judge had found against Dr Lim on her claims that the university had contravened the Act and had breached the Flinders University Enterprise Agreement. The primary judge had accepted the employer’s evidence and impressions of witnesses, finding Dr Lim’s evidence less credible. Dr Lim sought an extension of time to appeal against the decision, which was dismissed by the Full Court. The court found that Dr Lim’s application for an extension of time was inadequate and that the proposed grounds of appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of an extension of time.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the delay in commencing the appeal was a consequence of the applicant’s choices in the use of her time and whether the explanation for the delay was adequate. The Full Court also had to consider whether the proposed grounds of appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of an extension of time. The Full Court found that the delay in commencing the appeal was a consequence of Dr Lim’s choices in the use of her time, and that her explanation for the delay was inadequate in part. The Full Court also found that the proposed grounds of appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of an extension of time.

The Full Court held that the delay in commencing the appeal was a consequence of Dr Lim’s choices in the use of her time. Dr Lim had been self-represented throughout the proceedings and had made forthright and genuine attempts to assist the Court to apprehend the case she advanced on the proposed appeal. However, the Full Court found that Dr Lim’s explanation for the delay was inadequate in part. The Full Court also found that the proposed grounds of appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of an extension of time. The proposed grounds of appeal appeared to impugn every adverse factual finding contained in the comprehensive reasons for judgment of the primary judge. The Full Court held that the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of an extension of time.

The Full Court dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal. Costs of the application were reserved, and if there be no application for costs made under section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on or before 3 November 2022, the parties were to bear their own costs.