Logan City Electrical Services Division Pty Ltd t/as Logan City Electrical v Christopher Antonarkis

[2018] FWCFB 3815

[2018] FWCFB 3815

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Logan City Electrical Service Division Pty Ltd T/A Logan City Electrical
v
Mr Christopher Antonarakis
(C2018/2938)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON
COMMISSIONER LEE MELBOURNE, 14 AUGUST 2018

Appeal against decision [2017] FWC 3801 of Commissioner Simpson at Brisbane on 21 July 2017 in matter number U2017/918 – extension of time to file appeal – whether public interest enlivened – application for extension of time refused.

[1] Logan City Electrical Service Division Pty Ltd t/a Logan City Electrical (the Appellant) has applied for permission to appeal and has appealed against a decision¹ made by Commissioner Simpson on 21 July 2017 (the Decision). In the Decision the Commissioner found that Mr Antonarakis had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Appellant and ordered that the Appellant pay Mr Antonarakis $19,640 compensation (the Order).

[2] Rule 56(2) of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 relevantly provides that a notice of appeal under s.604 must be filed within 21 calendar days after the date of the decision the subject of the appeal or within such further time allowed by the Commission on application by the Appellant. The Appellant lodged its notice of appeal on 31 May 2018, some 294 days after the expiry of the prescribed 21-day time period. Rule 56(2)(c) confers a discretion on the Commission to extend the time within which the appeal is to be lodged.

[3] Time limits of the kind in Rule 56 should not simply be extended as a matter of course. There are sound administrative and industrial reasons for setting a limit to the time for bringing an appeal and it should only be extended where there are good reasons for doing so.

[4] The authorities 2 indicate that the following matters are relevant in considering whether to exercise the Commission’s discretion to extend time under Rule 56(2)(c):

•  whether there is a satisfactory reason for the delay;

•  the length of the delay;

•  the nature of the grounds of appeal and the likelihood that one or more of those grounds being upheld if time was extended; and

•  any prejudice to the respondent if time were extended.

[5] As mentioned earlier, the Appellant seeks an extension of the time within which an appeal is to be filed. The matters relevant to such an application are those set out at [4] above. In broad terms the issue for the Commission is whether, in all the circumstances and having regard to the matters set out above, the interests of justice favour an extension of the time within which to lodge the appeal.

[6] The application to extend time was heard on 11 July 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing we informed the parties that we had decided to refuse the Appellant’s application to extend time and that we would issue our reasons in due course; these are those reasons.

[7] The relevant background may be shortly stated.