A Victorian worker who lodged her Fair Work general protections claim just 20 seconds after the 21-day statutory deadline has been refused a time extension by the Fair Work Commission. The worker, who admitted she started filing her claim 10 minutes before the deadline, claimed she experienced technical issues with the Commission’s online portal. The Commission found this did not meet the bar of exceptional circumstances warranting a time extension. It also highlighted the risk the worker incurred by attempting to lodge her claim so close to the deadline.
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work general protections case: Person A v The Respondent [2026]. We’ll also look at the case of a flight attendant who was granted an extension due to her abusive partner.
Case Summary: Person A v Employer [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission Victoria.
- Key employee argument: Technical difficulties with the Commission’s online lodgement portal caused a minor and excusable delay in filing.
- Key employer argument: The exceptional circumstances threshold for extending time is a very high bar. Prior cases involving short delays have been refused by the Commission.
- Fair Work outcome: The time extension application was refused, resulting in the dismissal of the Fair Work general protections claim.
Fair Work general protections claim dismissed on technicality
The worker, referred to as Person A due to a confidentiality order, had been employed with the respondent when she lodged a formal complaint in October 2025. She alleged she had been mistreated by management. She repeated this complaint in January 2026 but said she received no follow-up from her employer. On 11 February 2026, due to funding cuts, the employer offered to redeploy the worker to an alternative role.
As part of the offer, Person A was required to undergo an independent medical examination. The employer said the examination was needed as the new role involved substantially different duties, including after-hours group work, and followed Person A’s earlier disclosure that she was neurodiverse. The worker’s union later told the employer that this requirement was “unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act.” Person A faced termination of employment on 27 February 2026.
Lodged 20 seconds late after experiencing ‘technical issues’
Person A subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim. She alleged she had faced retaliation for making a workplace complaint and disability discrimination. Under section 366(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, a Fair Work general protections claim must be lodged within 21 days of dismissal taking effect. The worker’s application was lodged at 12:00:20 am on 21 March 2026, precisely 20 seconds after the deadline expired. Person A later applied for an extension of time with the Fair Work Commission.
She explained that she began attempting to file her claim in the Commission’s online portal at 11:50pm on 20 March 2026. However, she was logged out of the portal after attempting to pay the filing fee and being redirected to a financial hardship form. This form required her to obtain fresh verification codes and repeat steps in the lodgement process. Person A said that, based on the time displayed on her device, she believed her application had been submitted in time. She also told the Commission that she had made several unsuccessful attempts to secure representation during the 21-day period, which contributed to the delay.
Why did the worker argue she should be granted an extension of time?
Person A argued that her Fair Work general protections claim should proceed because:
- She faced technical difficulties with the Commission’s online lodgement system.
- She had prepared her application well in advance and made a “concerted effort” to comply with the Commission’s requirements.
- She had made genuine attempts to secure representation or advice throughout the 21-day period, without success.
- Granting an extension would be fair to others in a similar position, given her diligence and the minor nature of the delay.
The employer opposed the extension, arguing that the exceptional circumstances threshold for an extension is a “very” high bar. It submitted that a delay caused by being logged out of an online portal is not unusual. The employer cited a series of Commission decisions in which extensions were refused for applicants who filed their claims between four seconds and two minutes late due to similar technical issues.
Why did Fair Work refuse to extend the deadline?
In May 2026, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the late lodgement was not caused by exceptional circumstances. It threw out Person A’s Fair Work general protections claim for the following reasons:
- Technical difficulties experienced with the online portal did not amount to a good reason for the delay.
- Person A did not begin the filing process until ten minutes before the deadline. This placed her Fair Work general protections claim at “risk” and left “no margin for error.”
- Her unsuccessful attempts to obtain representation caused a delay that was considered “routine and commonplace.”
- The worker was aware of the 21-day time limit from an email she received from the Workplace Advice Service weeks earlier.
- A comparison with prior Commission decisions involving claims lodged seconds or minutes late weighed against granting an extension. It “would not be fair” to applicants in comparable situations whose extensions had previously been refused.
The Fair Work Commission noted that rejecting extensions for very short “micro delays” caused it “some discomfort.” However, it found it was “entirely legitimate” to refuse an extension where an applicant, without good reason, leaves the filing of their application until the final minutes before the deadline. The Commission highlighted Person A took by only commencing the filing process with just ten minutes before the deadline.
‘Prisoner in her own home’: Worker granted extension for late claim
In Santina Lanza-Volpe v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2022], a Virgin Australia flight attendant who filed her Fair Work general protections claim seven minutes late was granted an extension of time. The Fair Work Commission accepted that her emotionally abusive partner had prevented her from accessing a computer until late at night. The Commission rejected claims that her bipolar disorder and distress over her termination explained the delay. However, it accepted that she felt like “a prisoner in her own home” and that this amounted to an exceptional circumstance warranting a time extension.
Case Summary: Santina Lanza-Volpe v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2022]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission Queensland.
- Key employee argument: Confusion over which form to file, bipolar disorder and domestic abuse caused a short but excusable delay in lodging her Fair Work claim.
- Key employer argument: The worker did not have a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay. Several of her reasons were not exceptional circumstances.
- Fair Work outcome: Exceptional circumstances existed. Worker was granted a time extension to proceed with her Fair Work general protections claim.
Fair Work extends deadline for worker fleeing abusive partner
Queensland-based Santina Lanza-Volpe commenced employment with Virgin Australia Airlines on 13 April 2019. She was dismissed verbally on 19 April 2022, with her termination confirmed by email two days later. Under section 366(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, a general protections application must be lodged within 21 days of a dismissal taking effect.
Ms. Lanza-Volpe lodged a Fair Work general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission on 11 May 2022 at 12:07am. This was just seven minutes after the 21-day deadline had expired. Virgin Australia opposed the granting of an extension of time, requiring the Commission to determine whether exceptional circumstances for the delay existed.
Why did the worker argue she should be granted a time extension?
In her application for a time extension, Ms. Lanza-Volpe argued to the Fair Work Commission:
- She had initially intended to file an unfair dismissal claim before realising late on 9 May 2022 that she needed to file a Fair Work general protections claim. This required her to research the correct process.
- She had delayed starting her claim because she was distressed by her dismissal letter. Losing her job with Virgin had been equivalent to losing part of her “identity, self-worth, and independence.”
- A letter from her psychologist stated that she suffered from bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. The letter stated her dismissal caused “severe psychological regression” that affected her judgment, causing her to miscalculate the deadline.
- Her “emotionally abusive” partner made it difficult to complete her claim. She felt like “a prisoner in her own home,” and that her partner only permitted her computer access late at night, once their children were asleep.
- On 10 May 2022, around 11:45pm, she drove to her parents’ house to scan and file her claim. She conceded that she should have photographed her completed form and uploaded it rather than driving elsewhere to scan it. However, she was unable to think clearly given her partner’s abusive messages.
Meanwhile, Virgin said that while it sympathised with Ms. Lanza-Volpe, she had not provided a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay. The company claimed her psychiatric condition was not out of the ordinary, and it was not unusual for a dismissed employee to experience psychological distress. Virgin also claimed Ms. Lanza-Volpe’s partner’s behaviour was not a credible explanation for the entire 21-day delay.
Why did Fair Work grant the extension of time?
In July 2022, the Fair Work Commission concluded that lodgement of Ms. Lanza-Volpe’s Fair Work general protections claim had been delayed due to exceptional circumstances. The claim was directed to proceed by way of a conference at a later date. This decision was based on the following findings:
- Ms. Lanza-Volpe’s confusion over which form to file was not found to be exceptional. She had been given “extensive and clear” information by the Commission.
- Her distress over the termination and her psychiatric condition were found not to be exceptional. The Commission doubted the psychologist accurately assessed her state given the appointments were too far removed from her dismissal
- However, her partner’s abusive behaviour was found to be “credible and reliable,” and was accepted as an exceptional circumstance.
- The Commission expressed “sympathy” for Ms. Lanza-Volpe’s “unenviable position.” It noted that she relied on her job for “psychological support” as she could not find support at home.
Fair Work FAQs
1. How long do I have to lodge a Fair Work general protections claim?
Under section 366(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, a general protections claim involving dismissal must be lodged with the Fair Work Commission within 21 days of the dismissal taking effect. Missing this deadline, even by a matter of seconds, can be fatal to a claim. This is because the Commission only grants an extension of time if there were “exceptional circumstances” causing the lodgement delay.
In Person A v The Respondent [2026], the worker’s claim was lodged just 20 seconds after the 21-day deadline expired. Even so, the Commission refused to grant a time extension to the worker. It found her reasons for the delay, including technical difficulties with the online portal and unsuccessful attempts to secure representation, did not amount to exceptional circumstances. This was particularly the case as she had only started filing her claim just ten minutes before the deadline.
2. Can I get a time extension for late lodgement of a Fair Work general protections claim?
Yes, however it is very rare for the Fair Work Commission to grant a time extension, as there must be “exceptional circumstances” for the delay. Issues like having technical difficulties with the Fair Work website have routinely been rejected as a good reason for a time extension to be granted.
An example of exceptional circumstances featured in the case Santina Lanza-Volpe v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2022]. The worker was granted an extension despite filing seven minutes late. The Commission ruled she had faced exceptional circumstances as she had an emotionally abusive partner who had restricted her access to a computer.
Read more: Worker Wins Battle After RSL’s $18K General Protections Costs Bid Fails
Have you been dismissed after making a workplace complaint?
If you have been dismissed for making a complaint, exercising a workplace right, or have been victim of another workplace rights violation, it is critical to act quickly. Strict time limits apply to Fair Work general protections and unfair dismissal claims, and even a very short delay can prevent your case from being heard. We at A Whole New (AWNA) Approach help employees across Australia to use the Fair Work system to their advantage and get the justice they deserve.
Your first consultation is free, and all consultations remain private and confidential. We work on a no win, no fee basis. Contact us today on 1300 766 700.
