Shaun Massey v The Trustee for Page Bros Trading Trust

[2024] FWC 3294

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shaun Massey
v

The Trustee For Page Bros Trading Trust

(U2024/12856)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 27 NOVEMBER 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – exceptional circumstances not found – extension of time not granted – application dismissed.

Mr Shaun Massey (Applicant) made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) on 28 October 2024. The application was made outside of the statutory 21-day time limit.[1] At the jurisdictional hearing earlier today and for reasons provided on the transcript, I found that there were no exceptional circumstances as set out by s.394(3) of the Act.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed. An Order to that effect will be issued separately.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

S. Massey, appearing on his own behalf.
S. Page, appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2024.
27 November (via Microsoft Teams)

[1] Section 394(2)(a) of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Shaun Massey, the applicant, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against The Trustee for Page Bros Trading Trust. Massey applied under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the remedy but filed the application beyond the statutory 21-day limit. Massey appeared pro se, while S. Page represented the respondent, The Trustee for Page Bros Trading Trust. The hearing took place on 27 November 2024 via Microsoft Teams.

The central legal issue before Deputy President O’Neill was whether the exceptional circumstances outlined in section 394(3) of the Act existed to warrant an extension of the time limit for filing the unfair dismissal application. The Act mandates that such applications be lodged within 21 days from the date of termination, and exceptions to this rule are narrowly construed. Massey needed to demonstrate compelling reasons for the delay, which could encompass factors such as unavailability due to illness, being overseas, or other significant impediments.

Deputy President O’Neill assessed Massey’s arguments and the evidence presented. The Deputy President found that Massey did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances. The reasons provided by Massey did not sufficiently justify the late filing of the application. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was denied, and the unfair dismissal application was dismissed for being out of time.

Following the dismissal of the unfair dismissal application, an order to that effect was issued separately by the Fair Work Commission. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing applications and the stringent criteria required to establish exceptional circumstances.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established