Shireen Stiffle v Shape Property Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 1210

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Shireen Stiffle

Shape Property Pty Ltd

(C2025/2424)

COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA

MELBOURNE, 1 MAY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

For the reasons given on transcript earlier today, I was not satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that would allow Ms Stiffle to file her application for a general protections dispute involving dismissal out of time.

In summary, Ms Stiffle was dismissed on 5 March 2025 with immediate effect. The date of dismissal is not in dispute. The Applicant filed this application on 27 March 2025. Accordingly, the application is two days out of time. Originally, Ms Stiffle submitted that her reason for the delay in filing her application was essentially the Fair Work Commission’s fault because they had given her incorrect advice in a telephone conversation and had sent the wrong application link by SMS. At the hearing, Ms Stiffle conceded that in this initial telephone conversation with the Fair Work Commission she was told that, as she had not worked for her employer for six months, she was not able to apply for an unfair dismissal application, but says she was nevertheless sent an incorrect link by SMS.

All the factors in s.366(2)(a) to (e) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) were treated as either not supporting a finding of exceptional circumstances or as neutral considerations. Not being satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances, there was no basis for me to allow an extension of time.

An Order to this effect,[1] will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

< PR786898>

[1] PR786899.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shireen Stiffle filed an application with the Fair Work Commission against her former employer, Shape Property Pty Ltd, alleging that she was dismissed without just cause or reason. The Commission was asked to consider whether Ms Stiffle’s application, filed two days outside the statutory deadline, should be accepted as it involved a claim for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard by Commissioner Mirabella in Melbourne on May 1, 2025.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether exceptional circumstances existed that would permit Ms Stiffle to submit her application for a general protections dispute out of time. Section 366(2)(a) to (e) of the Fair Work Act provides the criteria for determining exceptional circumstances, including whether Ms Stiffle had a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether she acted promptly once she became aware of the delay, and whether any prejudice to the respondent would result from granting an extension of time. The Commission needed to consider these factors in the context of Ms Stiffle’s claims of receiving incorrect advice from the Fair Work Commission.

Commissioner Mirabella found that none of the factors outlined in section 366(2) supported a finding of exceptional circumstances. While Ms Stiffle initially argued that the Fair Work Commission's incorrect advice was a reasonable excuse for the delay, this claim was ultimately not substantiated. The Commissioner concluded that Ms Stiffle's application was not filed within the required time frame and, therefore, there were no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order that Ms Stiffle's application for a general protections dispute involving dismissal would not be accepted as it was filed two days outside the statutory deadline. The Commissioner found no basis for extending the time limit under the exceptional circumstances provisions of the Fair Work Act.

Shireen Stiffle v Shape Property Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established