Neven v Aurizon Operations Limited [2016] FWCFB 5497

(#P52_2514) Halls v McCardle and Ors [2014] FCCA 316

(#P55_2775) This is so because on appeal the Commission has power to receive further evidence, pursuant to s.607(2); see Coal and Allied v AIRC [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [17] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ

(#P70_3972) O'Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61; (1989) 168 CLR 210 per Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Gaudron JJ: applied in Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; (2011) 85 ALJR 398 at [69] per Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ; Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler and others [2011] FCAFC 54; (2011) 192 FCR 78 at [44]- [46]

(#P71_4333) GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin [2010] FWAFB 5343, 197 IR 266 at [24]- [27]

(#P72_4461) GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin [2010] FWAFB 5343, 197 IR 266 at [26]- [27] Lawrence v Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd t/as Mt Thorley Operations/ Warkworth [2010] FWAFB 10089 at [28], affirmed on judicial review_; Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler_ (2011) 192 FCR 178; NSW Bar Association v Brett McAuliffe; Commonwealth of Australia represented by the Australian Taxation Office [2014] FWCFB 1663, 241 IR 177 at [28]

(#P75_5526) [2010] FWAFB 5343, 197 IR 266 at [24] - [27]

(#P78_6003) Also see CFMEU v AIRC [1998] FCA 1404; (1998) 89 FCR 200 at 220; and Wan v AIRC [2001] FCA 1803; (2001) 116 FCR 481 at [26]

(#P79_6296) Wan v AIRC [2001] FCA 1803; (2001) 116 FCR 481 at [30]

(#P80_6479) Lawrence v Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd t/as Mt Thorley Operations/Warkworth [2010] FWAFB 10089 at [28], 202 IR 288, affirmed on judicial review in Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler [2011] FCAFC 54; (2011) 192 FCR 78; NSW Bar Association v Brett McAuliffe; Commonwealth of Australia represented by the Australian Taxation Office [2014] FWCFB 1663, 241 IR 177 at [28]

(#P103_8179) Cheval Properties Pty Ltd (t/as Penrith Hotel Motel) v Smithers [2010] FWAFB 7251, (2010) 197 IR 403 at [17]; Thiess Services Pty Ltd v Stephens [2014] FWCFB 2426 at [37]. That is not to say that a credible explanation for the whole of the delay is a necessary pre-condition for the grant of an extension of time, since the reason for the delay is but one of a number of matters which are required to be considered under s.366(2) in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist. These decisions concern s.394(3) but are equally applicable to s.366(2).

(#P138_12135) Transcript 9 August 2016 PNs 36-40

(#P139_12337) Transcript 9 August 2016 PN42

(#P200_16699) [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 at [504] - [505] per Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer