Reihana v Mastercare Highrise Cleaning Services Pty Ltd

In the matter of Reihana v Mastercare Highrise Cleaning Services Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Reihana, sought a review of the decision of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Senior Deputy President. The applicant had applied for an extension of time to make an unfair dismissal application, which was dismissed by the Senior Deputy President on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. Mr Reihana appealed the decision of the Senior Deputy President to the Full Bench, which was also dismissed. The legal issues in this case related to the scope of the court's jurisdiction to review decisions of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission and whether the Full Bench had made a jurisdictional error in refusing to admit new evidence or information on appeal. The court held that the Full Bench did not make a jurisdictional error in refusing to admit new evidence or information on appeal. The Full Bench had correctly identified that the new evidence or information was not sufficient to lead to satisfaction that there were exceptional circumstances as required by s 394(3) of the Fair Work Act for allowing a further period for the making of the applicant's unfair dismissal remedy application. Moreover, the new evidence or information was available to the applicant at the time the matter was heard by the Senior Deputy President. The court also held that the Full Bench did not make a jurisdictional error in refusing to allow the applicant to elaborate on his submissions at the hearing or in refusing to admit new evidence on appeal. The Full Bench had correctly identified that decision-makers need not refer to every piece of evidence and every contention of a party. The Full Bench had also correctly summarised the applicant's submissions at [5] and [6] of their decision. The court dismissed the application and refused the applicant permission to appeal. The court held that the Full Bench had not made a jurisdictional error in dismissing the applicant's appeal and that it was not in the public interest to grant the applicant permission to appeal. The Full Bench had correctly identified the reasoning process followed by the Senior Deputy President to find that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify extending time for the making of the applicant's application. The applicant had not established that the Senior Deputy President's decision involved a significant error of fact. The court's decision in this case clarifies the scope of the court's jurisdiction to review decisions of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission and the principles governing the admission of fresh evidence on appeal. It also highlights the importance of decision-makers taking into account all relevant evidence and submissions in making their decisions.