Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gao v Tin (Staffing Services) Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 453 File number: VID 1369 of 2019
Judge: STEWARD J
Date of judgment: 9 April 2020
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – general protections court application – s. 370 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth.) – where applicant made a general protections application involving dismissal to the Fair Work Commission – where applicant filed the application outside the statutorily prescribed period – where Commission refused to provide the applicant an extension of time – where Commission did not issue a certificate pursuant to s. 368(3)(a) – where applicant purported to file a general protections court application in the absence of the certificate – whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant's application
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth.) Pt 3-1, ss. 340, 341, 365, 366, 368, 370, 394, 570 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth.) rr. 16.21, 34.03, Sch. 1
Cases cited: Chen v. Birbilis [2016] FCA 661 Knight v. Visionstream Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1513 Milardovic v. Vemco Services Pty Ltd (No 2) (2016) 242 F.C.R. 492 Ward v. St Catherine's School [2016] FCA 790
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions: 26 March 2020
Registry: Victoria
Division: Fair Work Division
National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 25
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant filed written submissions on his own behalf
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S. Kaintatsis
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate