Harwood v Iconic Payroll Management [2025] FedCFamC2G 1615

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. These are fair work proceedings in respect of which they were the subject of an originating application signed by the applicant on 21 February 2025, identifying that the applicant had problems meeting the deadline for the 14 days from the s 368 certificate of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ("the Act") from the Fair Work Commission provided on 7 February and that the applicant was aware that time would expire, as she understood it, at midnight. The originating application identified that the applicant had been delayed by technical issues in the eLodgment process and the lodgement of forms for email lodgment through the Perth Registry. It also contended that the applicant has been struggling to make ends meet and alleges that she has certain medical issues and has found the process stressful. The originating application records that it was actually received at 2.42 pm on 25 February 2025, being a Tuesday. It was not formally accepted by the Registry until 6 March 2025. Effectively, the applicant was two days late, taking into account the weekend.
2. The Court takes into account the principles for extension of time under s 370 of the Act, identified by O'Callaghan J in Molony v ATM Logistics Pty Ltd [2017] FWCSum 3712 and in Souben v Prost Group Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 731. The applicant put on a formal application for an extension of time, although on one view, her originating application was clearly a layperson's request for an extension of time, which the Court takes into account. The applicant's affidavit in support of her formal application for an extension of time, lodged on 17 June 2025, in substance, identifies an attempt made to lodge the application on time and having difficulties with the ePortal. The Court accepts the applicant's explanation as reasonable, given that she was unrepresented. The Court considers that this is a matter where, whilst there can be further detailed facts provided around the difficulty, the explanation is reasonable. The delay is insignificant. It was two days. There is no real prejudice to the respondents.
3. The Court has also taken into account that part of the grounds in the applicant's application appears to be the raising of issues in respect of the award that was applicable to her in her role of employment. The Court asked whether there was a written contract of employment and was told that the representative for the respondents believes there was. The Court asked whether that written contract correctly identified the applicable award to the applicant and was informed that the Court could not be assured that this was the case. In those circumstances, the Court has also taken into account that the application does not, on its face, appear hopeless and has sufficient merit to warrant the Court extending time under s 370 of the Act.
4. It is for these reasons the Court makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.