CASE PROCEDURES – stay order – ss.394, 604, 606 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – at first instance Commission determined that employee was unfairly dismissed and ordered compensation of $14,592.00 gross plus 9.5% superannuation to be paid within 21 days – appellant sought permission to appeal decision and sought a stay of the whole of the order – in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant a stay order, Commission must first be satisfied that appellant has an arguable case with some reasonable prospects of success, both in respect of permission to appeal and substantive merits of appeal – balance of convenience must weigh in favour of order subject to appeal being stayed [Kellow-Falkiner Motors] – appellant listed multiple grounds of appeal – common theme that decision of Commission involved significant errors of fact – appellant also sought to lead fresh evidence at appeal – purpose of examining grounds of appeal is to consider whether they disclose an arguable case of error, with some reasonable prospect of success on appeal – Commission not persuaded that appellant made an arguable case with some reasonable prospect of success – not persuaded that alleged errors listed in grounds of appeal could be described as significant – considered alleged misapprehension of appellant witness evidence regarding availability of certain products in chemists a matter of potential significance – noted that access to justice should be afforded to entire community and to the extent that a problem of translation resulted in an alleged error of fact it must be significant – not satisfied that appellant had made out an arguable case, with some reasonable prospects of success as to the merits of an appeal or as to permission to appeal – application for stay dismissed. Appeal by Ferngrove Pharmaceuticals P/L against decision of Sams DP of 8 June 2017 [[2017] FWC 2999] Re: Ji
