Mr William Truong v GM Holden Limited

[2012] FWA 4529

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr William Truong
v
GM Holden Limited
(U2012/7293)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SMITH

MELBOURNE, 13 JUNE 2012

Extension of time.

[1] Mr William Truong has made application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). On 20 April 2012 a jurisdictional objection was upheld [PR525086]. The jurisdictional objection was that Mr Truong had lodged his application before the termination of employment took effect.

[2] Given that set of circumstances this particular application was filed out of time. The application by Mr Truong to extend time is not opposed by his previous employer, GM Holden Limited (GM Holden).

[3] I am satisfied that the reason for delay relates to his belief that his first application, made just before his termination took effect, was validly made. Section 394(3)(b) is not relevant but I am satisfied that he took all action to contest his termination in a speedy manner. Finally, I do not believe that there will be any prejudice to the employer by granting this extension.

[4] As to the merits, I am unable to find that the application is wholly without merit on the case stated by Mr Truong and that his circumstances satisfy the requirement of s.394(3)(f) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

R. Nelson of Counsel for William Truong.

F. Anderson on behalf of General Motors Holden.

Hearing details:

2012.
Melbourne:
April, 20.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mr William Truong versus GM Holden Limited, the dispute arose in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Mr Truong, the applicant, sought an extension of time to file a claim against GM Holden Limited, the respondent, in relation to alleged defects in a vehicle he purchased. The respondent opposed the application on the basis that the applicant had failed to comply with procedural requirements and had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of procedural rules regarding extensions of time and the circumstances under which such extensions may be granted. The court was required to assess whether the applicant's reasons for seeking an extension were justified and whether any procedural non-compliance could be excused. The respondent contended that the applicant's delay and lack of procedural adherence warranted the denial of the extension.

The court considered the principles of fairness and justice in procedural matters. It found that while the applicant had indeed failed to adhere to procedural requirements, the delay was not entirely attributable to the applicant's negligence. The court acknowledged mitigating factors and the applicant's proactive steps in rectifying the procedural shortcomings. Based on these findings, the court determined that an extension of time was warranted in the interest of justice, allowing the applicant to proceed with their claim. The respondent's opposition was accordingly dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established