Phillip Quinlivan v AA Skips Pty Ltd

[2024] FWC 3366

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Phillip Quinlivan
v

AA Skips Pty Ltd

(U2024/12551)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 4 DECEMBER 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – extension of time not granted.

This decision concerns an application made by Mr Phillip Quinlivan (Applicant) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an unfair dismissal remedy involving his alleged dismissal from AA Skips Pty Ltd (Respondent).

Section 394(2) of the Act provides that an application for an unfair dismissal remedy must be made ‘within 21 days after the dismissal took effect’, or within such further period as the Commission allows pursuant to s 394(3). The application in the present matter was filed six days outside the 21-day period and can only proceed if the Commission grants a further period for the application to be made.

The application was listed for hearing on 4 December 2024 to determine the extension of time issue. For the reasons given in transcript at the conclusion of the hearing, I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed.

An order giving effect to this decision is separately issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

P Quinlivan on his own behalf.
J Veliscek for AA Skips Pty Ltd.

Hearing details:
2024.
By telephone:
December 4.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Quinlivan lodged an application under the Fair Work Act 2009 for an unfair dismissal remedy, claiming that he was dismissed from his employment with AA Skips Pty Ltd. The application was made six days beyond the statutory 21-day period, necessitating a determination by the Fair Work Commission on whether to extend this period due to exceptional circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time for Mr. Quinlivan’s application. The Deputy President considered the reasons provided for the delay and evaluated them against the criteria for exceptional circumstances. The Deputy President concluded that the provided reasons did not sufficiently demonstrate exceptional circumstances, and thus, the application for an extension of time was not granted.

The Deputy President found that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time for Mr. Quinlivan's application. Consequently, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed. The Deputy President's decision was based on the insufficient evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify extending the statutory time limit for filing such an application.

An order was issued separately, formalising the dismissal of Mr. Quinlivan’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy. This order reflects the Deputy President's decision that the statutory time limit was not appropriately extended and thus the application was deemed inadmissible.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established