• [13] During the determinative conference, Mr Ahmad explained that the legal representative referred to in his correspondence was a friend who is a lawyer. This friend assisted him in drafting the emails to Amazon and advised him on Sunday 7 September 2025 to contact the Commission regarding his situation.

• [14] Mr Ahmad effectively says his application was filed late for the following reasons:

a) He did not know that he could file an application with the Commission until his friend suggested it to him on Sunday 7 September 2025.

b) Mr Ahmad left Australia on Thursday 1 May 2025 to deal with legal matters in his home country regarding his late father. These matters were complicated, requiring the organisation of witnesses and documentation from different government departments. Mr Ahmad did not return to Australia until Sunday 27 July 2025.

1. After Mr Ahmad returned to Australia, he was waiting on Amazon to respond to his emails.

• [15] It is well established that ignorance of the 21-day deadline for filing an unfair dismissal or general protections application - without more - is not an acceptable reason for a delay in filing.[16]

• [16] I accept that Mr Ahmad was overseas to handle his father's estate, which was complicated and involved significant time and emotional resources. However, Mr Ahmad was able to dispute his deactivation whilst he was overseas, including seeking advice from a friend who is a lawyer.

• [17] Even if I were to accept that Mr Ahmad's time overseas to handle his father's estate was an acceptable reason as to why he did not file his application within that time period, I am not persuaded that Mr Ahmad has adequately explained why he did not file his application until 43 days after he returned to Australia.

• [18] Mr Ahmad's explanation that he was waiting for an acceptable response to his emails from Amazon is not persuasive in the context of his emails and the length of the delay. Mr Ahmad's emails demonstrate that he could dispute his deactivation with Amazon and had access to the internet. Neither Mr Ahmad nor Amazon provided the email replies from Amazon. However, from Mr Ahmad's emails, he was clearly aware of the passage of time since his deactivation. Mr Ahmad had also sought advice from someone who has some experience with the law, though I accept that was not in the capacity of formally engaging legal representation. What it shows however, is that Mr Ahmad was alive to the issue of his deactivation and was seeking advice about how to dispute it.

• [19] When considering Mr Ahmad's circumstances individually and collectively, I find that Mr Ahmad does not have an acceptable reason for the delay in filing his application. In my view, this is a factor that weighs against a finding of exceptional circumstances.

2.2 Whether the person first became aware of the deactivation after it had taken effect

• [20] Mr Ahmad says that he first became aware of his deactivation on Sunday 22 June 2025. However, given Mr Ahmad filed his application 78 days after this date, I do not find that this is a factor that weighs in his favour.

• [21] This consideration is about whether a respondent is on notice that the applicant actively contests the decision.[17] As per Mr Ahmad's emails between Sunday 22 June and Saturday 6 September 2025, he repeatedly contacted Amazon to dispute his deactivation. I am satisfied he took action to dispute his deactivation. This is a factor that weighs in favour of a finding of exceptional circumstances.

2.4 Prejudice to the regulated business (including prejudice caused by the delay)

• [22] Amazon does not argue that it will suffer any particular prejudice as a result of the delay in Mr Ahmad's application. However, the absence of prejudice is not, of itself, conclusive of exceptional circumstances.[18] In these circumstances, I treat this consideration neutrally.

• [23] The merits of the application are relevant; however, the assessment of the merits for present purposes is limited to a preliminary consideration.[19] Further, the primary consideration is whether Mr Ahmad has an arguable case.[20]

• [24] Amazon submits that Mr Ahmad was not protected from unfair deactivation pursuant to s 536LD(c) of the Act on the basis Mr Ahmad did not perform work for Amazon from November 2024 to 6 February 2025. That is, in the six months leading up to Mr Ahmad's deactivation date, he did not perform work for four months. Amazon points to several cases of the Commission where it has been held that where there are extensive periods during no which work was performed, a worker has not satisfied the requirement under s 536LD(c) to perform work for a digital labour platform on a regular basis for a period of at least six months.[21]

• [25] Mr Ahmad did not challenge Amazon's evidence or submissions in this regard. However, I am mindful that he is unrepresented and speaks English as a second language, and so I do not draw any inferences from this. Mr Ahmad's position is that Amazon was unreasonable in its expectations of his delivery performance.

• [26] Given the circumstances, I treat this factor neutrally in my consideration of whether there are exceptional circumstances.

2.6 Fairness as between the Applicant and other persons in a similar position

• [27] This factor relates to ensuring the application is of consistent principles and may relate to matters currently before the Commission or of prior Commission authorities.[22] Neither party brought any substantive matters in this regard to my attention. I treat this factor neutrally.

2.7 Any processes specified in the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code

• [28] Neither party brought any substantive matters in this regard to my attention, though Amazon foreshadowed that there would be a dispute about whether the Code was complied with, should an extension of time be granted. I treat this factor neutrally.

• [29] Having considered all the circumstances of this matter and the factors in s 536LU(4), I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. I have given weight to the length of the delay and the lack of acceptable explanation as to why Mr Ahmad did not file his application prior to Monday 8 September 2025.

• [30] As Mr Ahmad's application was lodged beyond the initial period provided by s 536LU(3)(a) of the Act and an extension of time has not been granted, there is not a valid application before the Commission.

• [31] On that basis I order that Mr Ahmad's application be dismissed.

[1] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 536LU(3)(a).

[2] Ibid s 536LU(3)(b).

[3] Nulty v Blue Star Group Ltd [2011] FWAFB 975 [13].

[6] Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd [2018] FWCFB 901 [39].

[16] Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 975 at [14].

[17] Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, at 299; Nicolas JR v Nortask Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 5324at [67]

[18] Jovcic v Coopers Brewery Limited [2023] FCA 797.

[19] Kyvelos v Champion Socks Pty Ltd Print T2421 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Acton SDP, Gay C, 10 November 2000) [14].

[20] Craig Thomson v Linx Cargo Care Pty Ltd [2022] FWCFB 40 [32]-[34].

[21] Panwar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1578; Ramzan v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd Trading AS Uber Eats [2025] FWC 1755; Osama v Didi Mobility (Australia) Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2055; Christian v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2096.

[22] Perry v Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd [2016] FWCFB 6963 [41].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer