Background
Peter Blade and Gregory Pike were dismissed by Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd on 12 October 2025. The next day, they began Federal Court proceedings and separately lodged general-protections dismissal applications with the Fair Work Commission. Their solicitor later sought to add claims that the dismissals were adverse action contrary to s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The statutory process required each applicant to obtain a Fair Work Commission certificate before making a general protections court application. Blade’s certificate was issued on 24 November 2025, but documents lodged within 14 days were initially rejected because they included an incorrect court form. Pike’s amended pleading was filed before his certificate issued on 5 January 2026; his solicitor then filed the certificate alone within 14 days, mistakenly believing that cured the premature filing. The applicants sought extensions of time under s 370(a)(ii).
The Court’s Holding
Halley J held that Pike had not validly made a general protections court application. A pleading filed before the required certificate was issued was a nullity for those dismissal claims, and later filing the certificate alone did not constitute an application for orders under Part 3-1. The Court also rejected the proposition that procedural amendment powers could retrospectively overcome the statutory jurisdictional conditions in s 370.
Nonetheless, the Court exercised its discretion under s 370(a)(ii) to extend time for both applicants. The errors and delay were attributable to their solicitor, not to Blade or Pike; Pike had consistently instructed that his dismissal claim be pursued. JLL suffered no relevant prejudice, having received the substance of the proposed dismissal claims early and not yet filed a defence. Blade’s claim was only two days late because of the erroneous form, and JLL substantially consented to relief for him.
Key Takeaways
- A general protections dismissal claim filed before the Fair Work Commission issues its certificate is invalid and cannot be cured merely by filing the certificate later.
- Section 370 imposes conditions on the Court’s jurisdiction, rather than a procedural time limit that ordinary amendment powers can retrospectively fix.
- Solicitor error may support an extension of time where the employee is not implicated, has instructed that the claim be pursued, and the employer suffers no relevant prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict sequencing required for general protections dismissal claims: obtain the Fair Work Commission certificate first, then make the court application within 14 days unless an extension is obtained.
It also confirms that the Court may grant relief from that deadline where the procedural failure is the representative’s error rather than the employee’s, particularly at an early stage of litigation and without prejudice to the employer.