//
[2026] FWC 164
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Commission
2026-01-19
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Applicant, Mr Fahad Ullah, appeared for himself.
Mr Sebastian McIntosh, of Counsel, instructed by Mr Steven Penning, Partner, and Ms Sofia Bryan, Solicitor, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, appeared with permission for the First Respondent (OM Security Pty Ltd).
Mr Daniel Delimihalis, of Counsel, instructed by Ms Holly Grant, Solicitor, Tom Howard Legal, appeared with permission for the Second Respondent (Meriton Properties Pty Ltd).
[1] Form F8, at Item 1.3, Digital Hearing Book/ Court Book (CB), pp.10-11.
[3] CB, p.12. See also Ullah v OM Security Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] FCA 1347, at [35]-[41], CB, p.65.
[4] By reference to the Applicant's state of mind or belief (see footnote 7 below).
[5] The 21-days post the Applicant's dismissal date was Saturday, 25 January 2025, and there was a public holiday on Monday, 27 January 2025. Even if one applies 28 January 2025 as the end of the 21 day timeframe, it makes no material difference to the period of delay.
[6] The 21-days post this dismissal date was Monday, 27 January 2025, which was a public holiday. Even if one applies 28 January 2025 as the end of the 21 day timeframe, it makes no material difference to the period of delay.
[7] The date of 21 March 2025 may go to a 'belief' by the Applicant as to this date being his date of dismissal, or an assertion by him that he only became aware of his dismissal on that date (per closing oral submissions of Mr McIntosh).
[9] Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd [2018] FWCFB 901.
[11] McGuire v Sandfire Resources NL [2020] FWCFB 6492, at [9] and [32]; Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd [2018] FWCFB 901.
[12] (1964) 38 ALJR 293, at 301.
[13] Section 366(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).
[14] Bianca Mamo v ICLED Australia Pty Limited T/A Signs National Group [2021] FWC 3903.
[15] Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd [2018] FWCFB 901, at [39]-[40].
[17] Shaw v ANZ Bank [2015] FWCFB 287, at [12].
[18] Ullah Statement, 11 December 2025, CB, pp.151-156, and Form F8, Item 1.4, CB, p.11.
[19] Accepted for filing on 16 April 2025, Matter Number: NSD571/2025. CB, pp.175-184.
[20] CB, pp.185-206. See especially at CB, p.203, paragraph [67] of the Amended Application.
[21] CB, pp.421-426. See also, First Respondent's submissions to Federal Court, 23 June 2025, at [30]-[32], CB, pp.840-841 (this was a further notice to the Applicant about ss.368 and 370 of the Act (i.e. as at 23 June 2025)). The Applicant says that he did not read the whole of these submissions. But that was the Applicant's choice not to read a court document that he had been duly served with. Not reading a document provided to you in a court case is not an explanation, let alone a credible explanation, for delay.
[22] Federal Court Transcript, 9 October 2025, P43 L20 - P44 L5, CB, pp.893-894. See also Federal Court Transcript, 10 October 2025, P180 L30 - L31, CB, p.1030.
[23] Ullah v OM Security Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] FCA 1347, CB, pp.58-80.
[24] Statement of Sofia Rose Bryan, 8 January 2026, CB, pp.169-173. See also Notice of Appeal, CB, pp.81-87.
[25] Note also undisputed background factual findings made by Justice Halley in Ullah v OM Security Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] FCA 1347, at [11]-[41], CB, pp.62-65.
[26] See paragraph [13(b)] of this decision.
[27] Section 366(2)(b) of the Act.
[28] Section 366(2)(c) of the Act.
[29] Meriton Submissions (7 January 2026), at [21]-[25], CB, pp.160-161. OM Security Submissions (8 January 2026), at [23], CB, pp.166-167.
[30] Section 366(2)(d) of the Act.
[31] Kornicki v Telstra-Network Technology Group Print PR3168, 22 July 1997 (Ross VP, Watson SDP, Gay C).
[32] Albeit under s.170CE(8) of the (now repealed) Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
[33] The Digital Hearing Book alone constitutes some 1099 pages. The Applicant also relied upon his Chronology of 77 pages.
[34] Ullah v OM Security Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] FCA 1347, CB, pp.58-80.
[36] Meriton Submissions (7 January 2026), at [31]-[33], CB, p.161.
[37] Ullah v OM Security Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] FCA 1347, at [56], and [63]-[68], [77]-[87], CB, pp.69-74.
[38] OM Security Submissions (8 January 2026), at [24]-[29], CB, p.167. Note also the decision in Kyvelos v Champion Socks Pty Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, at 299-200.
[39] Section 366(2)(e) of the Act.
[40] Pitrau v Barrick Mining Services Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 8363; (2012) 255 IR 144, per McCarthy DP, at 151-152, [37]. See also, Robert Csontos v Kewarra Lifestyles Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1687 at [30] citing Perry v Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd [2016] FWCFB 6963 at [41].
[41] See Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Food Distributors Pty Ltd T/A Richmond Oysters [2018] FWCFB 901.
[42] [2011] FWAFB 975, at [13]-[14].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Fahad Ullah
OM Security Pty Ltd, Meriton Properties Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 164
[5] Granting an extension of time requires the Commission to be "satisfied" that there are "exceptional circumstances". The Full Bench of this Commission in Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 975 (Nulty), in relation to the term "exceptional circumstances", stated:
"Finally, to require that regard be had to a particular matter in making a discretionary judgment is not to require that that matter shall be allowed an actual influence upon the ultimate result. The matter is to be considered for such bearing as it may have upon the question to be decided, and it is to be allowed such weight (if any) as the tribunal thinks it ought to be given; but if the tribunal thinks it ought to have no weight, then no weight is required to be given to it: cf. Beresford v Ward [1961] VicRp 99; [1961] VR 632, at 634."
(1964) 38 ALJR 293
(1995) 67 IR 298
(2012) 255 IR 144