The Full Bench refused an extension of time to appeal where the appellant's explanation for the five-day delay — a mistaken belief that the appeal period was 28 days rather than 21 — was found to be inadequate, particularly given the availability of an experienced industrial advocate who appeared at first instance and the fact that the appeal period was unchanged by the legislative amendments relied upon. The Full Bench confirmed that where the delay is unexplained, the appellant must demonstrate that the appeal grounds are strong or evenly balanced, citing Tu'uta Katoa, and found the grounds had not been shown to be sufficiently arguable to outweigh the deficient explanation. The substantive question of whether a no further claims clause can preclude a claim affecting only one individual member was not resolved, though the Full Bench noted the appellant's position appeared to fly directly in the face of the Full Bench's earlier reasoning in Director General, Department of Justice v CSA [2025] WAIRC 00146.
The full text is available to signed-in members.