TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – extension of time – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal made 17 days late – not disputed applicant’s employment ended on 16 January 2017 – applicant lodged unfair dismissal application on 23 February 2017 – applicant sought a further period for an unfair dismissal application to be made – Nulty and Diotti considered – Commission considered applicant’s circumstances from the time of dismissal to determine whether there was a reason for delay beyond the 21 day period and if such reason constituted exceptional circumstances – applicant adduced medical evidence to support her contention that she has suffered from significant mental health conditions including adjustment disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression for a number of years as a result of traumatic events in her life – applicant also submitted that since was forced to move out of the home she shared with her children in February 2015, she has not had stable accommodation – the applicant gave evidence she has moved between the homes of both of her parents, the home of her partner’s parents, friends’ homes, sleeping in her car, and on the floor of her partner’s trade storage unit – applicant submitted her poor financial situation following her dismissal prevented her from getting some things done quickly, for example, the applicant did not have access to the internet or her phone during part of the period between 16 January 2017 and 23 February 2017 – Commission accepted the applicant’s evidence that she was significantly incapacitated by reason of her mental health conditions for some of the days in the period between 16 January 2017 and 23 February 2017 – found applicant had relatively stable accommodation in her friend’s house from about 25 January 2017 until about 21 February 2017 – whilst sympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, the Commission found the matters relied on for the delay in filing the application were not, either viewed in isolation or considered together, out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon – applicant did not provide an adequate explanation for the whole period of her delay in filing her application – Commission considered Kornicki and adopted the reasoning that the Commission should not embark on a detailed consideration of the substantive case for the purpose of determining whether to grant an extension of time to the applicant to lodge an application – found there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the applicant be granted a further period for an application to be made – application for an extension of time refused – jurisdictional objection upheld – substantive application dismissed. Applicant v Respondent
…
