Sen v Doors Plus Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 85

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Sen v Doors Plus Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 85

APPLICANT Orkun James Sen PARTIES: RESPONDENT Doors Plus Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 5168 of 2005

CORAM: Staff J

Practice and procedure - Unfair dismissal application - Application by applicant for adjournment of hearing - Practice Direction 17 - Failure to provide clear and compelling reasons for adjournment - Application refused CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal application - Application by applicant for adjournment of hearing - Practice Direction 17 - Failure to provide clear and compelling reasons for adjournment - Application refused

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996

HEARING DATES: 08/03/2006 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 03/08/2006

APPLICANT Mr O Sen (In person) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Solicitor: Ms A Harvey Coleman & Greig

JUDGMENT:

- 1 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CORAM: Staff J

8 March 2006

Matter No IRC 5168 of 2005

ORKUN JAMES SEN v DOORS PLUS PTY LIMITED

Application by Orkun James Sen pursuant to s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 re unfair dismissal

EX TEMPORE DECISION

[2006] NSWIRComm 85

1 This matter has been referred by the Industrial Registrar to the Commission pursuant to Practice Direction 17. 2 On 2 March 2006, Mr Sen ("the applicant") forwarded a letter by facsimile to the Industrial Registrar which relevantly stated: I would like to request an extension for my unfair dismissal case due to a family matter that requires me to be overseas. A close relative is in hospital and was a victim of a freak accident. The situation of her health is critical as she is in a coma. I will be returning from overseas in mid June. … 3 The history of this matter is that the applicant filed an application for relief pursuant to s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 in relation to unfair dismissal on 6 October 2005. A conciliation conference took place before Commissioner Patterson on 14 November 2005. It was unsuccessful and an extended timetable was made by the Commissioner to accommodate the applicant who was not returning from his honeymoon until 10 January 2006. 4 The Commissioner made the following directions: (i) the applicant to file any witness statements upon which he relied by 7 February 2006; (ii) the respondent to file any witness statements upon which it relies by 28 February 2006; (iii) the applicant to file any material in reply by 14 March 2006. 5 On 10 February 2006, the applicant filed his material. On 1 and 2 March 2006, the respondent filed affidavits upon which it seeks to rely. The matter is listed for hearing on 5 April 2006. 6 During the hearing of this application, the applicant advised that it was his cousin who was ill. He further advised that he became aware of his cousin's illness on or about 1 March 2006. 7 I enquired of the applicant when he was proposing to leave Australia to see his cousin and why he would not be returning until mid June. The applicant advised that, subject to the application for adjournment being granted, that he proposed to leave at the end of the week. The applicant further stated that he proposed to spend a couple of weeks in Turkey providing support to the family of his cousin and then he proposed to travel to China, arriving on or about 1 April 2006, to prepare for the Canton Fair. This is a trade fair that is due to commence in Guangzhou, China on or about 15 April, 2006. The purpose of the applicant arriving in China on or about 1 April 2006 is to enable him to have printed certain pamphlets and other advertising material. 8 Ms A Harvey, solicitor, appeared for the respondent and opposed the application for an adjournment, submitting that the applicant has already been accommodated by the Commission in respect of the extended timetable fixed by the Commission. In addition, Ms Harvey submitted that counsel and a handwriting expert had been retained for the hearing on 5 April 2006. 9 I am of the view that the applicant has not provided to this Commission clear and compelling reasons which would justify, in my mind, an adjournment of the hearing which is listed for 5 April 2006. It is clear that the real reason for the application for an adjournment of the hearing is the applicant's visit to China and not his cousin's illness. This Commission is not here for the general convenience of parties. Practice Direction 17 is intended to facilitate the quick, cost-effective disposal of unfair dismissal matters. 10 I therefore refuse the application for an adjournment. The matter will proceed as programmed for hearing commencing 10.00 am on Wednesday 5 April 2006.