• b. he suffered from mental health deterioration during the period of May to July 2025.[11] The Applicant submitted that he consulted his doctor on 22 May 2025 and that his antidepressant medication was increased from 50mg to 100mg with the new script issued on 15 July 2025.[12] He submitted that this constitutes objective medical evidence of his mental health deterioration during the key period in which the application would ordinarily have been filed.[13] Further, the Applicant submitted that his capacity to manage administrative or legal matters during this period was impaired.[14] The Applicant submitted that these contentions are supported by the following annexures:

1. a screenshot of what appears to be a text message conversation between the Applicant and an unknown party on 22 May 2025. In the screenshot, the unknown party asks for the Applicant's email address and the name of their medication, and says they are obtaining a script for the Applicant on "instant scripts". The Applicant responds:

"Oh are you sure? I was just going to head up to the doctors after I drop [REDACTED] off, I have the car, serteline 50mg I think it was, but I wanted to see the doctor about upping it to 100mg" and "Email verified".

The unknown party then asks the Applicant for his date of birth and explains they are setting up an "account if you'd like to go drs today that's fair ill still get that ready as a back up in case you can't get in again or on.." and the screenshot is cut off from there.[15]

• ii. a photo of a medical prescription dated 15 July 2025 in the Applicant's name for Sertraline 100mg.[16]

These annexures do not provide any direct explanation for the Applicant's delay over the entire period of 21 May 2025 until 16 September 2025 or any significant, specific, part of this period, nor are they supported by any proper medical evidence such as a statement or medical certificates from a doctor that speak to the any specific dates within the relevant period in question or describe the nature of any impairment. Instead, this material shows that the Applicant was capable of making arrangements to attend to everyday administrative tasks such as making and attending appointments, going to chemists and the like.

• c. he had "increased caring responsibilities and NDIS administration" during the delay period.[17] The Applicant contended that his son was approved for NDIS funding on 20 June 2025 under a self-managed plan.[18] He provided a photo of a document addressed to his wife, dated 13 June 2025, indicating that the NDIS had approved funding for support for a member of his family.[19] Further, the Applicant submitted that "managing therapy bookings, invoices, scheduling and financial reporting was overwhelming, especially as [his] home environment deteriorated".[20] He submitted that due to this pressure, he converted the plan to be a managed plan on 27 August 2025.[21] He contended that these occurrences demonstrate increased caring responsibilities, a significant administrative overload and reduced capacity to manage complex legal processes during the delay period.[22]

In support of this contention, the Applicant annexed a number of screenshots, including:

• i. a screenshot of what appears to be an email from NDIS staff to the Applicant's wife dated 22 June 2025;[23]

• ii. a screenshot of what appears to be an email from the Applicant to NDIS staff dated 27 August 2025 requesting that the NDIS plan become agency-managed due to financial pressure arising from the requirement to pay up front;[24] and

• iii. a screenshot of what appears to be an email response from the NDIS the following day acknowledging that the Applicant's request had been submitted.[25]

The Applicant asserts in his email to the NDIS that he is separated and taking full care of his son.[26]

• d. his relationship broke down during this period, leaving him responsible for childcare and household management, and escalating financial stress, such that the Applicant relied on a loan from a friend to avoid rental arrears.[27] This was supported by the following annexures:

1. a screenshot of what appears to be a text message conversation, dated 15 July 2025, between "Miss Toni" and another party which appears to be the Applicant, in which "Miss Toni" says:

You did what now Mr? Please don't worry paying me right now i can do wait. And yeah your so right im not playing soccer im just the ref today haha Na I so bailed today aswel gonna be a shit show tomorrow but ill have to go in.

I hope you didn't feel like I was unresponsive yesterday I understand it's a big deal you wanting to get some help im here to support you in whatever you need i am just so disappointed in kym. She message me saying she is worried about you but then stops in at mels before coming home?"

The other party (apparently, the Applicant) replies:

"Oh youre more than right, and besides it honestly makes me feel better knowing im paying some of it back and not having it like looming, I know youre not fussed on it... but I am, but [...] [...] that negative mindset, today will be what it will be, but [...]"[28]

• ii. a further screenshot of a text message also dated 15 July 2025 in which the Applicant appears to be telling his friend about his financial woes.[29] There is little weight I can place on evidence of this nature.

• e. there was employer-related confusion and further delay discovering that the separation certificate had an incorrect reason for termination as set out in paragraph [5].[30] This was supported by what appear to be phone screenshots showing a list of documents and forms.[31]

• [8] In addition, the Applicant made submissions about administrative or technical difficulties, housing instability and family emergencies.[32] However, the supporting evidence for these submissions is insufficient to persuade me that these issues, whether in part or collectively, explain the Applicant's lengthy delay of (a) 95 days, counting from when the Applicant received his termination in writing on 23 May 2025; or (b) 97 days, counting from when the Applicant was dismissed. For example, the Applicant provided a number of annexures with a brief unsigned description.[33] These annexures were not attached to a signed or sworn statement and predominantly contained screenshots that appear to have been from the Applicant or some other party's phone, computer or other device.

• [9] Further, the annexures[34] included:

• a. screenshots of what appear to be two emails from a property management company. These emails were "friendly reminder[s]" to the Applicant, dated 5 August 2025 and 13 August 2025, noting that rent was in arrears by eight days and nine days, respectively.[35]

• b. screenshots of what appears to be the transaction history of an unidentified account, showing payments alleged to have been made to the Applicant by Centrelink during the period from 2 July 2025 to 12 September 2025.[36]

• c. screenshots of what appears to be an email conversation, dated initially at 28 August, with an unidentified party, showing a super fund logo in the corner, indicating the Applicant had made an application for a hardship payment.[37] No copy of the application was provided to the Commission. The first screenshot contains what appears to be an email from the super fund: a somewhat obscure reply indicating that the unidentified party (perhaps a super fund representative), on an unknown date, was not satisfied and was seeking more information in order to consider the Applicant's claim.[38]

• d. screenshots appearing to demonstrate that, on 19 and 20 August 2025, the Applicant uploaded forms to Centrelink, the title of the forms indicating the Applicant was claiming that he was separated but living under the same roof as another party.[39] However, copies of the documents alleged to have been uploaded were not provided.

• e. a screenshot indicating that the Commission has waived the payment of his application fee.[40]

• [10] The Applicant put forward the case of Ayton v you come first Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 6853 to support his contentions; however, this case does not appear to exist.

• [11] I do not accept that the errors by the Respondent in relation to the separation certificate prevented or impeded Mr Halcrow's timely lodgement of his application for unfair dismissal. Nor do I accept that the Respondent's error in mid-September could possibly have caused a misapprehension about whether the Applicant was dismissed on 21 May 2025. It was the Applicant's own evidence that he knew he was dismissed on 21 May 2025 verbally and that this was confirmed in writing on 23 May 2025.[41]

• [12] In respect of the Applicant's stated medical issues, I accept the submissions of the Respondent that it is well settled that a medical condition or distress will not warrant an extension of time unless the Applicant is able to establish exceptional circumstances exist on the basis of specific medical evidence which was absent in this matter.[42]

• [13] In providing other reasons for the delay, the Applicant adopted what I would describe as a 'scattergun' approach. The Applicant submitted that these reasons,[43] both individually and cumulatively, demonstrated exceptional circumstances. However, nothing was put before the Commission that could be said to rise to the level of actual evidence. Annexures were not submitted through a signed or sworn statement; parties and assertions were not identifiable or supported with evidence of any probative value.

• [14] Furthermore, there is no evidence as to whether anything specifically exceptional arose in the Applicant's circumstances.[44] Neither did the Applicant in his submissions, nor in the material that was filed, deal with how his circumstances specifically impacted, to the level required,[45] any major part of the period of delay from the time of the dismissal on 21 May 2025, or from when he received a termination letter on 23 May 2025, until the date he actually filed his claim on 16 September 2025. Even if I were to accept that all of the annexures were factual, they would only serve to explain a delay of a few days. Further, in my assessment, some of those annexures actually demonstrate that the Applicant had the ability to manage many of his affairs over a lengthy period, any of which were no more complex than making a call to the Fair Work Commission to lodge an unfair dismissal claim over the phone or by email as he eventually did.

• [15] The lack of supporting evidence,[46] as set out in my assessment of the Applicant's reasons for delay, weighs against a conclusion that there are exceptional circumstances in this case.

• [16] As I have found, it is uncontested that Mr Halcrow was made aware of his dismissal on 21 May 2025 verbally and in writing on 23 May 2025.[47] I find that this is a neutral consideration pursuant to s.394(3)(b).

• [17] As to the other mandatory considerations, Mr Halcrow did not put any submissions or evidence before the Commission that he disputed his dismissal prior to the lodgement of this application (s.394(3)(c)). This weighs neutrally with respect to granting an extension.

• [18] I consider there to be only a very slight prejudice to the employer associated with the delay in this case (s.394(3)(d)) and note that there were no submissions or evidence put by the Applicant on this point. I consider this prejudice to weigh slightly against granting an extension of time.

• [19] Further, in consideration of the material before the Commission, I do not consider that there are any matters that are relevant to fairness between Mr Halcrow and other persons in a like position (s.394(3)(f)). I consider this to be a neutral factor.

• [20] As to the merits (s.394(3)(e)), Mr Halcrow submitted that his dismissal was harsh, but not unjust or unreasonable.[48] He was terminated as a consequence of being intoxicated at work. It is not possible to make a detailed assessment of the merits at this point. Mr Halcrow has an argument; however, the merits of the matter would also depend on findings being made after hearing the evidence. I regard the merits as a neutral consideration.

• [21] The Commission can extend the time for making a general protections application only if it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. Taking into account all of the matters in s.394(3), I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances in this case. There is no basis for the Commission to extend time. The application is dismissed. I order accordingly.

[3] Applicant's Statement p.8 (DCB p.68).

[5] Applicant's Outline of Submissions filed 29 October 2025 at [4] (DCB p.15 at [4]).

[8] Applicant's Submissions in Reply filed 7 November 2025 at [2] ("Submissions in Reply") (DCB pp.160-161).

[15] Submissions in Reply, Attachment 3 (DCB p.165).

[19] Submissions in Reply, Attachment 5 (DCB p.167).

[23] Submissions in Reply, Attachment 6 (DCB p.168).

[28] Submissions in Reply, Attachment 9 (DCB p.171).

[31] Submissions in Reply, Attachment 11 and 12 (DCB p.173-174).

[33] Submissions in Reply (DCB p.160-174).

[42] Woolworths Ltd v Lin [2018] FWCFB at [67].

[43] Submissions in Reply (DCB pp.160-174).

[45] Woolworths Ltd v Lin [2018] FWCFB at [67].

[46] Harrison v Recruitment Solutions [2021] FWC 6049 at [26].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer