Lord v Flight Centre Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 188

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Lord v Flight Centre Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 188

APPELLANT: Melissa Lord PARTIES: RESPONDENT: Flight Centre Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 2212 of 2006

CORAM: Schmidt J

CATCHWORDS: Appeal - application to extend time to appeal and leave to appeal and appeal against a decision - unfair dismissals proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution - parties not given opportunity to be heard - no reasons for decision given - application granted

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996

CASES CITED: Jia Ju Huang v The Sunnyfield Association [2006] NSWIRComm 144

HEARING DATES: 29/05/06 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 05/29/2006

APPELLANT: Ms Melissa Lord

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr John Whateley

JUDGMENT:

- 6 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CORAM: Schmidt J

29 May 2006

Matter No IRC 2212 of 2006

MELISSA LORD AND FLIGHT CENTRE LIMITED

Application by Melissa Lord to extend time to appeal and leave to appeal and appeal against a decision of Commissioner McLeay given on 22.2.2006 in matter no. IRC 1342 of 2005

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

[2006] NSWIRComm 188

1 This is an application to extend time to appeal from a decision given by Commissioner McLeay on 22 February 2006. The Commissioner dismissed the application brought by Ms Lord under s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 ('the Act') for want of prosecution, in accordance with Rule 146 of the Commission's Rules, because the application was not pursued with due diligence. No explanation of what caused the Commissioner to reach this conclusion appears in the decision and no other reasons for the decision were given. 2 The application for extension of time was filed on 19 April 2006. It seems that originally Miss Lord had tried to file an appeal from the Commissioner's decision on 4 April, but it was returned to her by the Registry, with advice of the need to make an application for extension of time. 3 Miss Lord appeared as an unrepresented litigant at the directions hearing in this matter. The respondent had been given notice by the Registry of the listing, but did not appear on that day. Subsequently, the Registrar notified the respondent of the hearing and the directions which had been made for the preparation of the matter for hearing, which required that an outline of submissions be filed by both parties. Neither party adhered to those directions. Oral submissions were advanced by both parties at the hearing. 4 Miss Lord's case was that she did not become aware of the Commissioner's decision until 5 March. On 7 March she wrote to the Commission querying the decision. On 13 March, she received advice that the application had been dismissed and the file closed, with reference made to what had occurred in proceedings on 9 December. Miss Lord complained that in further discussion and correspondence with officers of the Commission over the following fortnight, no mention was made of the process following the advice of the decision, nor was she advised of the appeal process available. 5 Miss Lord had learnt of her right to appeal from a friend, who was a solicitor, around 4 April. In the application for leave to appeal which she then sought to file, Miss Lord asserted that on 9 December 2005 she had been advised by a Commission officer that orders had been made that day requiring her to advise the Commission by 28 February of progress in Local Court proceedings between the parties. In fact, the transcript recorded that Ms Lord had been directed to approach the Commission by 17 February. Miss Lord wrote to the Commissioner on 28 February, but was advised that the proceedings had been dismissed. 6 The Local Court proceedings, which had been initiated by the respondent in April 2005, were dismissed on 21 March 2006, it seems, as Mr Whateley appearing for the respondent explained, because of the respondent's failure to comply with directions given to it by the Local Court. Fresh proceedings have now been commenced by the respondent against Miss Lord, which it will pursue against her.