Muhammad Humdan v Kalano Community Association Aboriginal Corporation

[2025] FWC 584

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Muhammad Humdan
v

Kalano Community Association Aboriginal Corporation

(C2025/542)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 26 FEBRUARY 2025

Extension of time – representative error – extension granted

In conference earlier this morning, I advised the parties that I was satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time in this case pursuant to s 366(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). Mr Humdan’s representative, the United Workers’ Union, acknowledged, and I accepted, that it was at fault in lodging his application under s 365 some 10 days out of time. The reason for the delay weighed strongly in favour of an extension. The respondent did not oppose an extension of time. I extended time to the date the application was made. Having determined this jurisdictional matter, I then proceeded to deal with the matter as required by s 368 of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

C. Gray-Starcevic for the applicant
A. Mole for the respondent

Conference details:
2025
Melbourne (by telephone)
26 February

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Muhammad Humdan, sought relief from the Fair Work Commission against the Kalano Community Association Aboriginal Corporation for alleged unfair dismissal. The case was heard by Deputy President Colman in Melbourne via a telephone conference. The primary issue before the Commission was whether an extension of time should be granted for Mr Humdan's application, which was filed 10 days past the statutory deadline.

The legal issue at hand was whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify an extension of the time limit for filing the application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant's representative, the United Workers’ Union, admitted to an error in calculating the filing deadline, and acknowledged that the application was indeed late. The respondent did not oppose the application for an extension of time. The Deputy President found that the reason for the delay was significant and warranted granting an extension.

Deputy President Colman granted the extension of time, ruling that the error by the applicant's representative constituted exceptional circumstances under section 366(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act. The Deputy President extended the time to the date the application was originally made, allowing the case to proceed on its merits. The Commission did not make any findings on the merits of the unfair dismissal claim at this stage, as the focus was on the jurisdictional issue of the late filing. The Deputy President then proceeded to address the matter in accordance with section 368 of the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established