Oguz Baran v Williams Fuel Systems Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2109

[2025] FWC 2109

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s 394—Unfair dismissal

Oguz Baran
v

Williams Fuel Systems Pty Ltd

(U2025/5945)

COMMISSIONER LIM

PERTH, 21 JULY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – extension of time – no exceptional circumstances – application dismissed.

What is this decision about?

Mr Oguz Baran was employed by Williams Fuel Systems Pty Ltd from Wednesday 21 July 2021 until Thursday 17 April 2025. Mr Baran was dismissed due to redundancy. On Wednesday 14 May 2025, Mr Baran applied to the Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

An unfair dismissal application must be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect;[1] or, within such further period as the Commission allows.[2] In Mr Baran’s case, the period of 21 days ended at midnight on Thursday 8 May 2025. His application is six days out of time.

Mr Baran seeks an extension of time for his application. WFS opposes this.

The Commission may extend the period under s 394(2) if satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant doing so. To determine whether there are exceptional circumstances, I must consider the factors in ss 394(3)(a)–(f) of the Act.

I conducted a determinative conference on Friday 18 July 2025. Mr Baran gave evidence for his case. Mr Daniel Png (General Manager) and Ms Trena Briggs (General Manager – Business Transformation) spoke for WFS.

Having considered the evidence of the parties and the factors in s 394(3) of the Act, I find that there are no exceptional circumstances that justify an extension of time. Mr Baran’s application must accordingly be dismissed.

The detailed reasons for my decision follow.

Should an extension of time be granted?

The Commission may allow a further period for an unfair dismissal application to be made if the Commission is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances.[3]

It is well established that:

Exceptional circumstances are circumstances that are out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.[4]
The circumstances themselves do not need to be unique not unprecedented, nor even very rare.[5]
Exceptional circumstances may include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors, or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually are of no particular significance, when taken together can be considered exceptional.[6]

In determining whether there are exceptional circumstances, I must consider the criteria in s 394(3) of the Act. I set out my consideration below.

2.1 Reason for the delay

The reason for the delay is not in itself required to be an exceptional circumstance. It is one of the factors that must be weighed in assessing whether, overall, there are exceptional circumstances.[7]

An applicant does not need to provide a reason for the entire period of the delay. Depending on all the circumstances, an extension of time may be granted where the applicant has not provided any reason for any part of the delay.[8]

Mr Baran says his application was filed late for the following reasons:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Oguz Baran v Williams Fuel Systems Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 2109
Decision Date: 21 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Oguz Baran applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against Williams Fuel Systems Pty Ltd. Baran was dismissed due to redundancy and filed his application for an unfair dismissal remedy six days beyond the statutory 21-day period. Baran sought an extension of time for his application, which Williams Fuel Systems Pty Ltd opposed. The Commission must consider the criteria in s 394(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time.

The court found that the reasons given by Baran for the delay in filing his application did not constitute exceptional circumstances. Baran's explanation that he was on holiday and unaware of his rights did not persuade the court, as being on holiday is not exceptional, and he had internet access to file his application. Additionally, his miscalculation of the deadline and lack of awareness about the law were not deemed exceptional circumstances. The court also found that Baran's awareness of his dismissal, lack of action to dispute it, and the absence of prejudice to the employer did not support a finding of exceptional circumstances. Finally, the merits of the application and fairness as between the applicant and others in a similar position were neutral considerations.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the factors in s 394(3) of the Act did not support a finding of exceptional circumstances. As Baran's application was lodged beyond the initial period provided by s 394(2)(a) of the Act and an extension of time had not been granted, the application was dismissed. The Commission ordered that Baran's application be dismissed due to the lack of exceptional circumstances.

Orders