Shellum v Grill'd Pty Ltd T/A Grill'd Health Burgers
Case
•
[2017] FWCFB 3893
•25 JULY 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Shellum v Grill'd Pty Ltd T/A Grill'd Health Burgers [2017] FWCFB 3898
[2017] FWCFB 3893
25 JULY 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Shellum brought a general protections application against Grill'd Pty Ltd, alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed. The application was filed after the 21-day statutory period had expired, but Shellum argued that the period should be extended under the relevant legislation. The Federal Circuit Court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the application and whether it was appropriate to do so. The primary judge held that the court did not have the jurisdiction to extend the time, and dismissed the application. Shellum sought leave to appeal the decision.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the Federal Circuit Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for filing a general protections application. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and determine whether there was any discretion to extend the time for filing the application. The court also had to consider whether it was appropriate to exercise any such discretion in this case.
The Federal Circuit Court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to extend the time for filing a general protections application. The court noted that the relevant legislation did not provide for an extension of time, and that any extension would require an amendment to the legislation. The court also held that it was not appropriate to exercise any discretion to extend the time, as the application was filed significantly outside the statutory period. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
No orders were made as the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the Federal Circuit Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for filing a general protections application. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and determine whether there was any discretion to extend the time for filing the application. The court also had to consider whether it was appropriate to exercise any such discretion in this case.
The Federal Circuit Court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to extend the time for filing a general protections application. The court noted that the relevant legislation did not provide for an extension of time, and that any extension would require an amendment to the legislation. The court also held that it was not appropriate to exercise any discretion to extend the time, as the application was filed significantly outside the statutory period. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
No orders were made as the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Eric Owenhall v Aerocare Flight Support Pty Ltd T/A Aerocare [2018] FWC 2478
Cases Citing This Decision
4
J.J v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by Commissioner of Police T/A Australian Federal Police
[2018] FWC 6351
Eric Owenhall v Aerocare Flight Support Pty Ltd T/A Aerocare
[2018] FWC 2478
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
0
Rebecca Shellum v Grill'd Healthy Burgers
[2017] FWC 2429
Fox v Percy
[2003] HCA 22
Fox v Percy
[2003] HCA 22