He missed two deadlines, then filed nearly 3,000 pages to save his case
A safety advisor who lost his unfair dismissal claim after missing two evidence deadlines has now lost his third and final appeal.
The Western Australian Industrial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal on November 4, 2026, finding the worker had been given every reasonable opportunity to be heard - despite filing thousands of pages of material across multiple rounds.
How a 'springing order' ended things before they started
The worker had been employed as a safety advisor by the Public Transport Authority before his employment was terminated on October 18, 2024. He filed an unfair dismissal claim with the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission the following month.
In February 2025, the Commission programmed the matter for a three-day hearing and ordered the worker to file his witness evidence and supporting documents by March 17, 2025.
He missed the deadline.
Two days later, he asked for more time - until April 1. The Commissioner who heard that request gave him something far tighter: one extra day, until March 25. Attached to that short extension was what is known as a "springing order" - an automatic trigger meaning that if the worker still had not filed his evidence by the new deadline, his entire claim would be dismissed without any further hearing.
He missed that deadline too. On March 31, 2025, the Commission formally dismissed his unfair dismissal claim.
644 pages, then 2,936 more
What followed was a string of appeals and a remarkable volume of paper.
The worker appealed to the Full Bench of the Commission, though he filed late and needed an extension of time just to get the appeal on foot. He also lodged a 644-page document - 117 pages of submissions backed by 527 pages of annexures. His separate extension of time application ran to another 117 pages.
The Full Bench heard the extension application on July 22, 2025. The worker attended and made oral submissions that, according to the court, were "not constrained as to time." He told the Full Bench he relied on his written material and did not wish to say anything further on the merits at that point.
Then, after the Full Bench had reserved its decision, the worker lodged yet another document on September 1, 2025. This one ran to 2,936 pages - 370 pages of submissions and 2,566 pages of annexures. He had not asked for or received permission to file it. The Commission refused to accept it.
On December 16, 2025, the Full Bench published its reasons, finding none of the worker's eight proposed grounds of appeal had any merit. Both the extension application and the appeal were dismissed.
The last roll of the dice
The worker took his case one level higher, filing with the Industrial Appeal Court on January 9, 2026. Under Western Australia's Industrial Relations Act 1979, appeals to that court are limited to three narrow grounds: the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction, made a statutory construction error, or denied the appellant the right to be heard. The worker's case rested entirely on that third ground - procedural fairness.
He raised five grounds of appeal. Two argued he was denied a reasonable chance to present his case. A third said he was improperly denied the chance to "speak to the minutes" - a procedural step under the Act. A fourth challenged how the Full Bench applied a specific statutory provision. The fifth argued the matter was of public importance.
None succeeded.
On the core question, the court found the worker had been given "the opportunity to say everything that he wanted to say at the hearing." He had placed extensive written material before the Commission. The Full Bench identified the issues in advance, heard his oral submissions without time limits, and invited him to respond to the respondent's arguments.
The complaint that the Full Bench's decision did not line up with the evidence was, the court found, "not a complaint about a denial of the right to be heard, but is rather a complaint about the merits of the Full Bench's decision." Procedural fairness, the court noted, requires a fair hearing - not a fair outcome.
On the rejected post-hearing filing, the court cited established authority that a hearing is ordinarily the final opportunity to put arguments forward. Filing further material after a decision is reserved requires leave, and that leave will only be granted "in exceptional circumstances." The worker had no right to keep filing.
On the "speak to the minutes" point, the court found the worker was given a written opportunity to raise concerns about the proposed orders. He accepted that the minute of orders properly reflected the Full Bench's decision. That process was not an invitation to re-argue the case.
For HR teams and employee relations practitioners, the case is a practical illustration that procedural deadlines carry real consequences in unfair dismissal proceedings - and that a tribunal's duty to provide a fair hearing does not stretch to unlimited rounds of submissions.
