William John Healey v HPA [2003] NSWIRComm 195

William John Healey v HPA [2003] NSWIRComm 195

The Commissioner’s refusal to extend time involved appellable error because he wrongly rejected uncontradicted evidence of incorrect advice, required corroboration from a union officer without legal basis and without alerting the self-represented appellant, made impermissible use of judicial notice about Registry advice, applied an incorrect objective test to the appellant’s stress, considered irrelevant matters, and failed sufficiently to consider relevant matters including the short delay and prospects of success. Having regard to the shortness of the delay and the evidence of wrong advice in circumstances where there was a real question about the filing due date, the s85(3) extension...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision in an Application Under S84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning Dismissal From Employment / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Refusal to Extend Time Under S85(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; application to extend time granted; matter remitted for hearing.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal Application' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'termination Date' 'wrong Advice' 'self Represented Litigant' 'judicial Notice' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Decision']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['unfair Dismissal Application' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'termination Date' 'wrong Advice' 'self Represented Litigant' 'judicial Notice' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Decision']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Decision in an Application Under S84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning Dismissal From Employment / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Refusal to Extend Time Under S85(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted.' "Whether the appellant's s84 application was filed out of time." 'Whether the Commissioner erred in refusing to extend time under s85(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' "Whether the Commissioner properly rejected the appellant's evidence that he received incorrect advice about the filing time." "Whether the Commissioner properly assessed the appellant's stress as a reason for delay." 'Whether the Commissioner erred in considering irrelevant matters and failing to consider relevant matters, including the shortness of delay and prospects of success.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner’s refusal to extend time involved appellable error because he wrongly rejected uncontradicted evidence of incorrect advice, required corroboration from a union officer without legal basis and without alerting the self-represented appellant, made impermissible use of judicial notice about Registry advice, applied an incorrect objective test to the appellant’s stress, considered irrelevant matters, and failed sufficiently to consider relevant matters including the short delay and prospects of success. Having regard to the shortness of the delay and the evidence of wrong advice in circumstances where there was a real question about the filing due date, the s85(3) extension...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; application to extend time granted; matter remitted for hearing.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'The application to extend time is granted.' "The matter is remitted for hearing to Commissioner O'Neill."]