CASE PROCEDURES – appeals – extension of time – s.400 Fair Work Act 2009 – Full Bench – application for extension of time to lodge appeal – notice of appeal lodged almost two years out of time – at first instance appellant found unjustly dismissed and 38 hours’ pay ordered as compensation – matters relevant to whether extension of time should be granted are reason for and length of delay; nature of appeal grounds and likelihood of grounds being upheld; and prejudice to respondent – reasons given for delay were appellant took time to complain about, then seek to resolve, issues regarding the matter at first instance without appealing – Full Bench found reasons for delay unsatisfactory and length of delay ‘very substantial’ – Commission must not grant permission to appeal unless in public interest – appeals on question of fact may only be made if decision involved significant error of fact – statutory test is stringent [Coal & Allied] – public interest test is discretionary and involves broad value judgment [O’Sullivan] – considerations that may attract public interest identified in GlaxoSmithKline – rarely appropriate to grant permission to appeal unless arguable case of appealable error [Wan] – fact that Member at first instance made error not necessarily sufficient basis for granting permission to appeal [GlaxoSmithKline] – appeal grounds included appellant had not received all correspondence between Commission and parties – employer had not provided legal name of relevant persons – Full Bench found these insufficient for granting permission to appeal – other grounds were material filed by respondent was illegal, incorrect and could be damaging to appellant’s current employment – Full Bench found member at first instance had not erred in admitting evidence used and although appellant might not be happy with the evidence, this was insufficient to allow permission to appeal – appellant unhappy with compensation amount but did not submit grounds showing appealable error – Commissioner had correctly applied legislation and there was no arguable case of any error of principle or significant error of fact – even if extension of time were granted, Full Bench not satisfied permission to appeal would have been granted – no prejudice to respondent – Full Bench concluded appellant had not provided satisfactory explanation for delay – lack of prejudice to respondent was not sufficient to extend time for appeal – not satisfied appeal raised public interest considerations – application for extension of time to lodge appeal dismissed – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Iurato against decision of Ryan C of 12 May 2015 [[2015] FWC 3248] Re: Crossmark Australia P/L
…
