A Sydney truck driver whose unfair dismissal claim was submitted late by his union has been granted a time extension by the Fair Work Commission. This is a rare occurrence, as the Commission only grants extensions in exceptional circumstances. A union representative had promised to lodge the claim, but he later “lost track” of it. He told the Commission that he was new to the job, having formerly been a truck driver, and had only lodged 10 claims previously.
This unfair dismissal NSW case – Adnan Ali v Lindsay Australia Pty Limited [2025] – is an example of why you need to be careful about who you entrust to represent you at the Commission. Later in the article, we’ll explore another recent Fair Work case where the employee’s lawyer accidentally sent another client’s claim to the Commission. This resulted in the claim being lodged 37 days late.
Sydney-based Adnan Ali worked as a truck driver for transportation company Lindsay Australia. The event that led to his termination of employment took place during a shift on 7 October 2025 at the company’s depot. Lindsay Australia alleged that Mr. Ali failed to operate a loading dock in compliance with safety protocols, which caused a “sudden movement” of the dock. The company characterised this as a “significant event” that could have caused serious injury to Mr. Ali and other workers. Following this incident, the company initiated a formal investigation. On 10 October 2025, Mr. Ali was stood down without pay for four days.
During this time, he sought the assistance of the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia and met with Fadie Odeh, a member service centre official. Mr. Odeh assisted Mr. Ali in drafting a response to the allegations of serious misconduct as part of a show cause process. Despite Mr. Odeh’s participation in this process, Lindsay Australia terminated Mr. Ali’s employment on 14 October 2025. The company stated the decision was based on the investigation’s findings, Mr. Ali’s response to the allegations and his disciplinary record.
Mr. Ali visited the union’s office the same day as his termination of employment. He told Mr. Odeh that he wanted to challenge his termination of employment. The latter told him that the union would help him lodge a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim and that he would be in touch about its progress.
An unfair dismissal claim must be lodged within 21 days of the employee’s dismissal. This meant that Mr. Ali’s claim needed to be lodged by 4 November 2025. However, somewhere along the line Mr. Odeh “lost track” of the claim, he later told the Fair Work Commission during formal proceedings. He only realised that he had not submitted the claim on 6 November 2025. This was when Mr. Odeh was asked about any outstanding matters he had on at the time. Realising the stuff-up, he immediately lodged the claim, but by then it was two days late.
In December 2025, the Fair Work Commission had to decide if there were exceptional circumstances warranting a time extension for Mr. Ali’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. Mr. Ali argued that he was “blameless” for the lodgement delay. He gave evidence that Mr. Odeh gave him “assurances” that the union would file the claim and keep him up to speed on its progress. Mr. Ali said that he “trusted” that this would happen and deferred to the union’s expertise. Mr. Odeh explained to the Commission that he was new to his role at the union, having previously been a truck driver. He said that he had only lodged less than ten Fair Work unfair dismissal claims and was “still learning” his role.
Meanwhile, Lindsay Australia strongly opposed the time extension. It argued to the Commission that its discretion to extend time should be withheld unless Mr. Ali could prove that he provided the union with “precise instructions to file” and had diligently followed up with them prior to the deadline. Lindsay Australia contended that by leaving his claim “entirely in the hands” of the union without following up prior to the deadline, Mr. Ali should not get an extension. The company also argued that treating these “routine circumstances” as exceptional would create “inconsistency” in the application of the Fair Work Act 2009. It said that this would undermine the “finality” that the 21-day limit is intended to provide for employers.
The Fair Work Commission noted that the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia was a “large and sophisticated” organisation. As such, it expressed concern that it entrusted a worker as inexperienced as Mr. Odeh to be solely responsible for a task with such strict statutory deadlines. It said that responsibility for the late lodgement lay with the officials who supervised Mr. Odeh’s work. Also, with those in charge of ensuring that there are appropriate systems in place.
The Commission found that the sole reason for the delay was “representative error” by the union. It noted that Mr. Ali struggled to understand and speak English and was entitled to trust the registered organisation. The Commission rejected Lindsay Australia’s argument that Mr. Ali had a duty to follow up with the union. It said this would “unreasonably” place further responsibility upon him beyond his action of providing clear instructions.
The Fair Work Commission also found that there was no evidence of specific prejudice to the employer caused by the two-day delay. Regarding the merits of the case, the Commission found this to be a neutral factor, as neither party had yet filed detailed evidence regarding the dock incident. Ultimately, the Commission was satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed.
It clarified that exceptional circumstances are those that are “”out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.” However, the circumstances do not need to be “unique,” “unprecedented” nor “even very rare.” It said that Mr. Ali was “blameless” for the late lodgement of his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. Invoking the objective of a “fair go all round,” the Commission granted the extension of time to 6 November 2025. The matter will now proceed to directions and conciliation to determine if Mr. Ali’s dismissal was unfair.
Another example of why you need to be careful when choosing representation is the Fair Work general protections case Lida Tajvar v Lovisa Pty Limited [2025]. Lida Tajvar was an employee of jewellery retailer Lovisa until her dismissal on 10 June 2025. Nine days later, she engaged Jewell Hancock Employment Lawyers to finalise and file her general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission. She argued that she had been dismissed due to her disability and proposed personal leave.
Ms. Tajvar was personally aware that the law requires general protections claims to be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect. This meant that she had until midnight on 1 July 2025 to file her claim. At 9.06pm that day, Ms. Tajvar’s legal representative, Andrew Jewell, sent an email to the Fair Work Commission Registry. While he intended to file Ms. Tajvar’s documents, he incorrectly attached a different file with the same name. This happened to be the Fair Work general protections claim of another client. Because he believed the correct file had been sent, Mr. Jewell emailed Ms. Tajvar at 9.07pm to confirm that the lodgement was complete.
The error remained undetected for over a month. It was only after Ms. Tajvar requested an update and Mr. Jewell contacted the Fair Work Commission on 8 August 2025 that the mistake was identified. Upon being advised of the error by the Registry, Mr. Jewell immediately filed the correct application. By then, however, it was 37 days after the deadline.
In November 2025, the Fair Work Commission had to decide whether the circumstances surrounding the 37-day delay were “exceptional.” Ms. Tajvar’s position was that she had done everything within her power to comply with the Fair Work Act 2009. She said that the main reason for the late lodgement was the error by her lawyer. The Commission noted that she had provided “uncontested evidence” to support her claim. This therefore demonstrated that she had sought representation early and provided clear, written instructions to lodge before the deadline.
Lovisa opposed the extension of time. When considering such applications, the Commission must examine specific factors, including the reason for the delay and any prejudice to the employer. In this instance, Lovisa did not provide submissions or evidence regarding any specific prejudice it would suffer if the case proceeded. The company also denied that it had dismissed Ms. Tajvar due to her disability or proposed personal leave. Because these were “contested points of fact,” the Commission noted it was impossible to make a firm assessment of the merits of Ms. Tajvar’s general protections claim at that preliminary stage. However, it said that she had a “prima facie case.”
The Commission noted that in the past, there are two distinct types of past Fair Work cases involving an error by a representative. Firstly, those where a delay is caused by a representative and where the employee is blameless. Secondly, those where the employee contributed to the lapse. The Commission determined that Ms. Tajvar’s late lodgement was the first type of case. It concluded that Ms. Tajvar presented a “clear, reasonable and uncontested” explanation for the delay. The fact that she had been diligent and was misled by her own lawyer into thinking the claim had been filed was a significant factor.
The Commission found that Mr. Jewell had “sole responsibility” for the late lodgement. It said that Ms. Tajvar should not be disadvantaged by the error of her representative. Ultimately, the Commission found that the combination of Mr. Jewell’s error and Ms. Tajvar’s proactive conduct met the test for exceptional circumstances. It determined that it would be unfair to deny the general protections claim given that past Fair Work cases had seen the Commission grant time extensions for employees who faced similar circumstances. The extension was therefore granted. The parties were then directed to participate in a conference to address the underlying dispute regarding the termination of employment.
Read more: Unfair Dismissal or General Protections Claim: Which Do I Lodge?
As these cases show, even a strong unfair dismissal or general protections claim can be jeopardised by careless or inexperienced representatives. Once the 21-day Fair Work deadline passes, extensions are rare and only granted in exceptional circumstances. Who you trust to guide and represent you matters.
Our experienced team at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives provides focused, hands-on support from the very start of the process. We help ensure claims are prepared correctly, lodged on time and presented in a way that puts you in the strongest possible position.
If you are thinking about challenging your termination of employment, don’t leave it to chance. Contact us at 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential initial consultation.
