Mr Muhammad Ahmed v Uber Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 2845

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Muhammad Ahmed
v

Uber Australia Pty Ltd

(U2025/10183)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN

SYDNEY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Muhammed Ahmed (the Applicant) seeks an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 . The respondent is Uber Australia Pty Ltd (Uber). Uber asserts the Applicant was not an employee but rather an independent contractor. It is unnecessary to canvass that distinction further as the application was also brought well out of time.

Applications under s 394 must be filed within 21 days of the date of the dismissal to which the application relates. The Commission can grant an extension of time in exceptional circumstances.

The delay was raised with the Applicant at the time of filing and subsequently in a Conference before me on 11 September 2025. I directed the Applicant to file any further material in support of his extension application in seven days.

In response to that direction the Applicant provided a short email describing in very general terms a period of illness. I cannot, on that basis, be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time to bring the application.

Accordingly, the application for an extension of time is refused and the substantive proceeding is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Muhammad Ahmed has filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against Uber Australia Pty Ltd under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The crux of the dispute is whether Mr Ahmed was an employee of Uber or an independent contractor, and whether his dismissal was unfair. Uber contends that Mr Ahmed was an independent contractor and not an employee, while Mr Ahmed argues that his dismissal was unfair and that he was an employee. The matter was heard by Deputy President Slevin of the Fair Work Commission in Sydney.

The legal issues before the court included whether Mr Ahmed was an employee of Uber, whether his dismissal was unfair, and whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time for filing the application for unfair dismissal. The court had to determine the employment status of Mr Ahmed and assess whether the application was filed within the required 21-day period. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate if there were any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of time for filing the application.

Deputy President Slevin found that the application was filed beyond the 21-day statutory period and that Mr Ahmed had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an extension of time. The Deputy President noted that Mr Ahmed had only provided a very general description of his illness without detailed evidence or documentation. As a result, the court was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused, and the substantive proceeding was dismissed.

The court did not delve into the merits of the unfair dismissal claim as the application was already out of time, and the extension application was not substantiated. The court’s decision focused solely on the timeliness of the application and the lack of exceptional circumstances.

Mr Muhammad Ahmed v Uber Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established