Gao v Citywide Service Solutions Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 394

Gao v Citywide Service Solutions Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 394

Mr Gao failed to establish any reviewable error by Commissioner Blair or the Full Bench. The Commissioner considered the statutory factors in s 394(3), and the reasons advanced by Mr Gao did not show exceptional circumstances or legal error in refusing an extension of time. Sections 772, 773 and 587(2) did not prevent dismissal because the application was made under s 394, was out of time, and was not dismissed on a ground identified in s 587(2). The Full Bench did not err in refusing permission to appeal, permitting Citywide's representative to appear, rejecting the alleged procedural complaints, or treating transcript deficiencies as not amounting to jurisdictional error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) Seeking Judicial Review of Fair Work Commission Decisions / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'unfair Dismissal' 'extension of Time' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'permission to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'representation Before Fair Work Australia' 'transcripts']
['administrative Law' 'employment Law' 'industrial Law'] ['judicial Review' 'unfair Dismissal' 'extension of Time' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'permission to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'representation Before Fair Work Australia' 'transcripts']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) Seeking Judicial Review of Fair Work Commission Decisions / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Commissioner Blair made reviewable error in refusing an extension of time for Mr Gao's unfair dismissal remedy application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)." 'Whether the Full Bench made reviewable error in refusing permission to appeal.' "Whether alleged differences between ex tempore reasons and the later order, alleged transcript errors, notification of the member hearing the matter, or Citywide's representation before the Full Bench established reviewable error." "Whether ss 772, 773 or 587(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) prevented dismissal of Mr Gao's application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Gao failed to establish any reviewable error by Commissioner Blair or the Full Bench. The Commissioner considered the statutory factors in s 394(3), and the reasons advanced by Mr Gao did not show exceptional circumstances or legal error in refusing an extension of time. Sections 772, 773 and 587(2) did not prevent dismissal because the application was made under s 394, was out of time, and was not dismissed on a ground identified in s 587(2). The Full Bench did not err in refusing permission to appeal, permitting Citywide's representative to appear, rejecting the alleged procedural complaints, or treating transcript deficiencies as not amounting to jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']