Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. ICQ
  3. 2024
  4. Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 3) - [2024] ICQ 9

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Discontinued (QCA)

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 3)[2024] ICQ 9

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 3)[2024] ICQ 9

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 3) [2024] ICQ 009

PARTIES:

Robertson, B

(Appellant)

v

McDonald's Australia Limited

(Respondent)

CASE NOS.:

C/2023/29 and C/2023/31

PROCEEDING:

Application consolidating all outstanding interlocutory applications.

Application for leave to file further applications.

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2024

MEMBER:

Hartigan DP

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

  1. The application consolidating all outstanding interlocutory applications is dismissed.
  2. The application for leave to file a further application in the proceedings is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – where interlocutory relief has been sought by the appellant on numerous occasions – where the appellant was directed to file an application consolidating all outstanding interlocutory applications – where the parties were directed that they were not permitted to file further interlocutory applications in the proceedings without leave of the Court – where the appellant sought leave to file further applications – where the interlocutory applications are dismissed.

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 557

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 100

CASES:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)

Robertson v McDonald's Australia (No 8) [2023] QIRC 192

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2023] ICQ 027

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    On 9 July 2023, the Appellant filed two applications to appeal a decision of the QIRC in Robertson v McDonald's Australia (No 8) [2023] QIRC 192 delivered on 26 June 2023.[1]
  1. [2]
    In the course of the appeals, the Appellant has, or has attempted to, file a large number of interlocutory applications. This decision determines several of those interlocutory applications.
  1. [3]
    Relevantly on 24 November 2023, orders[2] were issued requiring the Appellant to file an application consolidating all outstanding matters in which the Appellant sought interlocutory relief together with written submissions ('Direction 1'). The orders also provided that neither the Appellant nor the Respondent were permitted to file any further interlocutory application, other than the interlocutory application referred to in Direction 1, without leave of the Court ('Direction 6').
  1. [4]
    Following the issuing of the orders, the Appellant sought to file several further interlocutory applications. The Court issued directions requiring the Appellant and Respondent to file submissions as to whether leave should be granted to file further interlocutory applications.[3]
  2. [5]
    This decision will consider the interlocutory relief sought by the Appellant and referred to in Direction 1 ('the consolidated application'), together with the Appellant's subsequent application for leave of the Court to file a further interlocutory application ('the application for leave to file'). Reasons have also been included for the dismissal of two oral applications made by the Appellant during the hearing on 24 November 2024.
  1. [6]
    It is necessary to consider these applications within the context of the history of the appeals and the conduct of the parties during the course of the matter to date.

Relevant history of the appeals

  1. [7]
    As noted above, the Appellant has filed two applications to appeal a decision[4] of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('QIRC').[5] The QIRC's decision[6], inter alia, dismissed proceeding AD/2021/7 pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('IR Rules').[7]
  1. [8]
    The decision cites the basis for the dismissal of the proceedings as follows:
  1. [63]
    Given Mr Robertson's three unsuccessful attempts, from February 2021, to file and serve a proper statement of facts and contentions, I have no confidence that, if I struck out Mr Robertson's third statement of facts and contentions and gave him leave to file and serve a fourth statement of facts and contentions, Mr Robertson would be able to file and serve a statement of facts and contentions that reasonably puts McDonald's on proper notice of the case it has to meet.
  2. [64]
    The history of Mr Robertson's three unsuccessful attempts to file and serve a statement of facts and contentions strongly supports my conclusion.
  3. [65]
    For these reasons, pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Rules, I will dismiss Mr Robertson's proceeding in AD/2021/7.
  1. [9]
    Each of the Appellant's appeals relate to this QIRC decision ('the QIRC decision'). The Appellant's grounds of appeal in C/2023/29 are as follows:

Where the member is held hostile (common and legal definition) as to the arguably social impact case.

Where the disparity between parties is at the highest end, Two Barristers AND Two Senior Council (notwithstanding) M.A.L have already some 17 Lawyers V S.R.L, no council, no advice (generally) speaks as to events engineered in part by the Deputy.

  1. The reader may reflect as to this in as to form thier own opinion/s if any, as to events.

Where the members position is spurious, and extraneous.

Where SILENTLY influence as to events is known and stated to occur, the exemption "gifted" the largest employer where franchises are included of "Juniors" in Qld and (Australia); and clear example of wanton excess by way of malice.

The action/s present as a mistake, possibly deliberate or a silent waiver, which is procedurally hostile.

Where the applicant is aware of issues as to "issues"

Where Merrell's (D.P) action re refused order is but One.

Where due process, is offended, possible illegality (not by the applicant).

Thus the applicants position is known as to be non (read sub); standard.

Where the member sought advantage for his own benefit as distance (preclude) the applicant's efforts.

Where he sought to do so under the guise of as to expedite matters.

  1. Where indeed the power exists for the exemption is not discernible.

Where the oddities of the commission impede due process.

Where after 2 Years expedite (by way of seeking to exclude relief) as to its argued a clear and unquestionable basis D.O.B

  1. Willmott V Woolworths Q C.A.T 601 reverently p 44, 51.

Where age discrimination was sought allowed by the member and/or the state of Queensland.

Where the member violated or waived silently s 454 I.R act.

  1. Where Commonwealth legislation Age Discrimination act s 18 (1) (a)(b)(c). 2 (a)(b)(c)(d).

Where 463/463 conflict.

Where Commonwealth legislation

Where council if aware and held to have been fairy required to have known of 563 (option) and did not expedite matters.

Expedite is a requirement has beem it is stated offended numerously.

Where not expediting matters offends Paramount Duty, stated also to have been offended by the council and the respondents.

Where pursuant to s 424 I.R act, s 454 presents as not optional (preventing discrimination) disregarding the act by way of (gifting) (?) exemption does not suffice. Where S 124 A.D act is offended.

  1. [10]
    The Appellant's grounds of appeal in C/2023/31 are voluminous and, for convenience, are annexed to this decision as Annexure A.  Relevantly, the Appellant seeks leave that their appeal be heard on grounds other than on the grounds referred to in s 557(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act').
  1. [11]
    As can be seen by a perusal of the grounds for both appeals, the matters sought to be raised by the Appellant are, to say the least, lengthy and varied.

History of interlocutory applications filed during the course of the appeal

  1. [12]
    During the course of the appeal[8], the Appellant has filed or sought to file,[9] 38 interlocutory applications.
  1. [13]
    One of the interlocutory applications that has already been dealt with, was an application that I recuse myself from hearing the appeal. In the written decision for the recusal application, some of the history of the matter was referred to as follows:[10]
  1. [5]
    These directions were issued having regard to the date of the hearing with the purpose of finalising the interlocutory application before the hearing of the appeal.
  1. [6]
    However, following the issuing of these directions the Appellant emailed the Industrial Registry an amended application which sought that the oral application to have the matter stayed, pending obtaining Legal Aid, be withdrawn. Further, the Appellant sought to withdraw their oral application to obtain data from the Respondent. The relief sought from the Appellant in their amended application is set out in the following terms:

…

(1).

That the oral application to have the matter stayed pending obtaining legal aid be withdrawn and as such the direction/s order issued related to the matter is vacated.

(2).

That the oral application as to obtain data from the respondent is withdrawn and as such the directions order issued related to the matter is vacated.

…

  1. [7]
    Accordingly, the appeals were listed for mention on 7 September 2023 to hear from the Appellant with respect to the amended application. Following the mention, orders were issued granting the Appellant leave to withdraw their stay application. Further directions were also issued requiring the parties to file submissions with respect to the attendance notice to produce objection.
  1. [8]
    However, and despite the steps taken above, on 19 September 2023, the Appellant again sought to stay the appeals as follows:

…

I seek leave that the Deputy Hartigan stay both matters and directions, till the applicant has access to legal advice  comensurate [sic] to the complexity and breath of matters.

Where L.A.Q will not reply to efforts to obtain advice.

Thus unreliable.

Where there is refused advice, where what advice is (or maybe available) is a single session (which Two matters by way of submissions as to appeals) can not reasonably be achieved for there are or will be X amount of pages (60 ?) of which present as not feasible to assist with within an Hour) Leave is sought to apply for.the stay in email form.

Leave is sought all directions are vacated pending the deacions [sic] as to recusal.

Leave is sought for a direction order that local government [sic] permit access to non library member (the applicant) plus the waiving of time limits (subject to the applicant sharing).

Leave is sought that the matters be stayed pending the decision as to recusal of.the [sic] Deputy. Signed electronically Applicant.

…

  1. [9]
    The appeals were listed for mention on 4 October 2023 to address the process associated with the determination of the interlocutory applications and in particular to determine the agreed order that the Court should deal with the interlocutory applications as well as the Appellant's further request to stay the matter while they sought legal advice. That is, relevantly whether the directions issued with respect to the legal representation and the objection to the attendance notice to produce be vacated in order to deal with the recusal application and whether the recusal application be dealt with before the application for a stay.
  1. [10]
    The Respondent consented to the recusal application being dealt with before the other interlocutory matters.
  1. [11]
    During the mention, the Appellant expressed a reluctance to agree that the recusal application be dealt with first. A reason nominated by the Appellant for their reluctance to agree to that course was on the basis that they stated they had taken a step with respect to seeking legal advice. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned until 18 October 2023 to allow the Appellant an opportunity to seek legal advice and to be in a position to indicate their position about the hearing of the recusal application at that mention.
  1. [12]
    At the conclusion of the mention on 4 October 2023, I indicated that:

And to that end, at the mention - at the next mention, I do expect the appellant to provide a firm view in relation to the manner in which the application should be dealt with. I’ll hear from the appellant on that occasion but, as I’ve indicated several times today, to my mind, given the appellant’s concern with my involvement in the matter, the application for a recusal should be dealt with before any other application. But, as I’ve said, there have been multiple applications that have sought alternative relief, including, for instance, that all matters be stayed, which would include, for instance, the matter involving the recusal application. So that’s why I’ve asked the appellant to turn their mind to that.

  1. [13]
    On 11 October 2023, the Appellant filed a further interlocutory application, which really took the form of a written communication in the matter, and was in the following terms:

…

That the mention or as understood set down on or about 18/10/23 be vacated.

Where the applicant nominates in written form that the recusal application of the deputy as the One the applicant seeks " first " determined.

That the determination of which be provided to parties in written form, where the applicant does not have "ID" that permits transcripts being made available.

  1. [14]
    Upon receipt of this communication, the mention listed on 18 October 2023 was vacated in order for the recusal application to be dealt with on the papers.
  1. [15]
    As noted above, directions had been issued on 22 August 2023 requiring the parties to file written submissions with respect to the Appellant's application. Directions Order (2) required the Appellant to file and serve written submissions by 5 September 2023. 
  1. [14]
    The Appellant filed a number of written submissions with respect to the recusal application. The last of the Appellant's submissions were received on 25 October 2023. The recusal decision was issued on 21 November 2023.
  1. [15]
    Relevantly, after the filing of the recusal application but before it had been determined, the Appellant continued to seek to file a number of interlocutory applications. The Industrial Registrar communicated with the Appellant in the following terms:[11]

Good afternoon.

The Registry is in receipt of your emails and relevant applications in existing proceedings dated:

  • Friday 22 September 2023;
  • Friday 29 September 2023;
  • Tuesday 10 October 2023;
  • Wednesday 11 October 2023;
  • Thursday 12 October 2023 (9:24am);
  • Thursday 12 October 2023 (12:29pm);
  • Thursday 12 October 2023 (2:36pm);
  • Friday 13 October 2023 (11:24am);
  • Friday 13 October 2023 (11:41am);
  • Friday 13 October 2023 (11:44am); and
  • Friday 13 October 2023 (12:40pm)

The decision whether to accept these applications for filing will be deferred until such time that the decision regarding your request for recusal of Deputy President Hartigan has been finalised.

  1. [16]
    On 21 November 2023, a decision was issued dismissing the Appellant's application that I recuse myself from hearing the Appeal.[12]
  1. [17]
    The Appeals were listed for hearing on 24 November 2023 to deal with all outstanding interlocutory issues that the Appellant continued to press.
  1. [18]
    During the course of the listing on 24 November 2023, the Appellant sought that the matter be stayed and requested reasons for the rejection of an application he had previously sought to file in the Industrial Registry. I took each of those requests to be oral applications and, after hearing from both parties, I dismissed the applications during the course of the hearing. I indicated to the Appellant that I would provide written reasons at a later date, and they are now included in the following paragraphs.
  1. [19]
    It became clear during the Appellant's submissions that, rather than requesting a stay of the proceedings, they were in fact seeking an adjournment of the listing.
  1. [20]
    The Appellant did not provide a specific or detailed basis for seeking an adjournment. Relevantly, no factual matters were placed before the Court. Rather, the Appellant made the following submissions:[13]

APPELLANT: Well I’m afraid - well then I’m afraid I’m not in a position to speak to it clearly, whatever it might be, for reasons that are private [indistinct] confidential and sensitive and again is considered to be more - far more important than - - -

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

APPELLANT: - - - than this [indistinct] and your imagination can run to a certain amount and that would be that - that would be [indistinct] myself and if it might be next week, I - I may be in a position to speak to questions that are asked, but I’m also of the opinion that oral doesn’t favour the appellant and that’s a deliberate position of the Member and the court by way of detriment.

  1. [21]
    On the basis that the Appellant did not particularise the basis for the adjournment, nor did the Appellant articulate any prejudice that would occur if the listing was not adjourned, the application was dismissed.
  1. [22]
    For completeness, it is noted that after the application for an adjournment of the listing was dismissed the Appellant suddenly left the teleconference call as follows:[14]

APPELLANT: Objection. There’s not a position as to be - sorry. I’m - I’m busy. I’m got a medical appointment. Bye.

  1. [23]
    The Appellant subsequently sought to rejoin the teleconference call for the listing and the hearing continued.
  1. [24]
    During the course of the resumed hearing the Appellant made a further oral application as follows:[15]

APPELLANT: Well then I might try again then. I seek leave that the court particularise the non-filing of the most recent application by way of that the court not having particularised such concerns that it has - or purports to have, then the applicant is disadvantaged by way of not understanding what - what the basis, if any, was as to the non-filing - - -

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

APPELLANT: - - - where the court is not trusted, nor is the respondent and nor is the Member and nor is the President and nor is the Registrar by the applicant, and that’s an unfortunate and very, very rare set of circumstances which the court may need to - in Robertson v McDonald’s.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

APPELLANT: I’d like to understand again what the basis was, if any, as to the non-filing and particularised under - if it’s under section 100, subsections as that the applicant isn’t [indistinct] it’s in the breeze as to what it is that the court finds so offensive or unacceptable as to preclude filing. It’s not particularly difficult.

  1. [25]
    As noted above, the Appellant has sought to file a number of interlocutory applications, some of which the Industrial Registrar referred to the Court pursuant to r 100(2) of the IR Rules.
  1. [26]
    Rule 100 of the IR Rules relevantly states:

100Registrar may refer certain documents to court or commission

  1. This rule applies if the registrar considers a document for filing is—
    1. an abuse of the process of the court or commission; or
    2. frivolous or vexatious.
  2. The registrar may refer the document to the court or commission before filing it.
  3. The court or commission may direct the registrar—
    1. to file the document; or
    2. to refuse to file the document.
  1. [27]
    As can be seen, r 100 relevantly provides that if the Registrar considers a document is either an abuse of the process of the Court or frivolous or vexatious, they may refer the document to the Court. The Court may then direct the Registrar to either file the document or refuse to file the document.
  1. [28]
    The Appellant was asked the nature of the relief sought and they responded as follows:[16]

APPELLANT: That the court provides to the applicant particularised basis as to the non-filing of the recent to more recent applications which was number, what, seven of - it’s not before me, and again I’m not speaking from my - at my best.

  1. [29]
    As noted above, upon a document being referred, the Court may, relevantly direct the Industrial Registrar to file the document or to refuse to file the document.
  1. [30]
    If such a direction is issued to the Registrar in accordance with r 100 (3), there is no requirement in r 100 for the Court to provide particularised reasons.
  1. [31]
    On this basis, the oral application made by the Appellant was refused.
  1. [32]
    As noted, during the course of the listing on 24 November 2024, Directions for the filing of material were issued. The Appellant requested additional time to comply with the Directions issued on 24 November 2023. This request was granted and on 23 December 2023 an Amended Further Directions Order was issued, providing the Appellant until 2 February 2024 to file an application and written submissions identifying and consolidating all outstanding matters that they pressed.
  1. [33]
    On 1 and 2 February 2024, the Appellant filed written submissions (in two parts). No application consolidating the outstanding interlocutory matters or articulating the relief sought was filed with the submissions.
  1. [34]
    On 22 February 2024, the Appellant requested that they be granted leave to file further documents in the Appeals pursuant to Direction 6 ('the application for leave to file').
  1. [35]
    Directions were subsequently issued on 29 February 2024 directing the parties to file submissions regarding the Appellant's application for leave to file.
  1. [36]
    Relevantly, the Appellant attempted to file a further 12 interlocutory applications between 27 February 2024 and 5 April 2024. Leave was not sought by the Appellant to file these applications.
  1. [37]
    On 29 February 2024, the Respondent filed written submissions in response to the Appellant's submissions with respect to the consolidated outstanding interlocutory matters.
  1. [38]
    On 15 March 2024, the Appellant filed written submissions in support of the application for leave to file.
  1. [39]
    On 4 April 2024, the Respondent filed its written submissions with respect to the application for leave to file.
  1. [40]
    The parties consented to the applications being determined on the papers.

The consolidated interlocutory matters

  1. [41]
    As noted above, Direction 1 was issued in order for the Appellant to consolidate all outstanding matters in which they sought interlocutory relief. The Appellant was advised of the purpose of Direction 1 as follows:[17]

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well I was going to propose this, because I can hear from the appellant that there are several outstanding matters that the appellant wishes the court to consider. What I will do is I will issue directions for the appellant to file one last interlocutory application. But the purpose of that interlocutory application is to identify all matters that the appellant is seeking relief in relation to prior to the final hearing of the appeal. I will allow the appellant to file an application, and if the appellant so wishes, any written submissions and affidavit in support of the application.

APPELLANT: Objection. I - the affidavit is an abuse of process so - of which you - my experience with you is one of - one that engenders disgust. It doesn’t require an affidavit. If I - if I [indistinct] to the court and if it’s incorrect then it’s a misleading statement. [indistinct] dishonest in that position of the affidavit being required. It’s a rather disgusting act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And then the respondent will be given an opportunity to respond to that. Now the purpose of this direction is to ensure that all outstanding interlocutory matters are included in one document so that the appellant, the respondent and the court knows precisely the nature of the outstanding matters that the appellant seeks prior to the final hearing of the matter. The purpose of that is that all other interlocutory applications that have been filed to date will not be considered because this fresh application.

  1. [42]
    The Appellant did not file an application having regard to the terms of Direction 1. Instead, the Appellant filed written submissions dated 1 and 2 February 2024 which, collectively, number approximately 153 paragraphs.
  1. [43]
    A number of the paragraphs address matters that go beyond matters that could be said to be relevant to any outstanding applications for interlocutory relief. In this regard, the Appellant addresses matters in the submission filed on 1 February 2024 that, in summary, relate to: their complaint regarding registry practices; matters relevant to the  substantive appeal and in particular the alleged finding that the Statement of Facts and Contentions was "deficient"; matters relevant to the Appellant's dissatisfaction with attempts to obtain legal advice, including by seeking the assistance of community legal centres and Legal Aid Queensland ('LAQ'); matters relevant to the allegations that the QIRC is incompetent; matters relevant to allegations that members of the Court and QIRC have variously "violated" provisions of the Human Rights Act (Qld) and the "ICCPR" and "CORD"; matters relevant to an allegation that the Respondent did not properly apply for leave to be legally represented before the QIRC; matters relevant to the subject matter of the recusal application that I have previously determined; matters relevant to unrelated proceedings AD/2022/6; matters relevant to an allegation that the Appellant was "harassed" by members of the Queensland Police Service; matters relevant to an allegation that members of the Court, Commission, Industrial Registry, the State and Commonwealth Attorney Generals, LAQ and various named individuals sought to mislead the Appellant and acted corruptly.
  1. [44]
    The submissions are in narrative form and make serious allegations against the Respondent, its legal representatives, employees of the Industrial Registry, members of the QIRC, members of the Court and a number of persons who are not a party to the appeal.  The Appellant also agitates matters going to my recusal in circumstances where the recusal decision was determined on 21 November 2023. The Appellant has not provided any evidence in support of the serious, and in some instances, scandalous, allegations that are made in the submissions. Further, the Appellant makes such submissions without seeking clear and cogent relief with respect to the matters.  Consequently, I will not address these matters any further.
  1. [45]
    However, some of the matters referred to in the submission of 1 February 2024 could, taken at their highest, be understood to be a request for discovery.
  1. [46]
    Relevantly, these matters appear in the submissions of 1 February 2024 as follows:

…

91. Where the volume related to matters is understood to be some Five Thousand (5000+) Plus pages. Where One (I) entity alone (Office Australian Information Commission, O.A.I.C has some Two Thousand (2000) pages, some held Authored by the respondent. Where the O.A.I.C refuses to provide the 2000 pages by way of time (and thus costs) constraints.

92. Where leave is sought that the documents that relate to the alleged actions, of the Respondent and Third party provider of whom export data intonationally, of which it is alleged and with the Commonwealth entity as to consider (where they have a great aversion) the conduct as to if it is alleged and stated the respondent breach the Australian Privacy              act.

93. Where within the reams of documents, the court has not provided adequate of    a timeframe as to be as certain as reasonably possible as to have the documents before the appellant and then the court, for the value as to at least in part (or in whole) the court would have a greater and due understanding.

94. Where the respondent: does not comply with an undertaking as to "Model Litigant Status". Where the Respondent /corporate council do not adhere to Paramount duty. Where M.A.L

…

100. Where the member is less than certain to have the understanding as to the license the respondent, affords itself. Where the respondent pleaded guilty in relation to failing to provide documents to the A.T.O as per media release.

101. Where the court had from by the appellant (but ignored and disregarded) the allegation that what M.A.L has a great aversion, to is to but not limited to disclosure namely it is secretive to "hostile" witness (respondent), namely it does not seek to remit the truth of matter/s be established. 102. It has effectively been licenced, to NOT provide any documents' to the appellant /court. It provided seemingly mistakenly for the lawyer was evidently removed replaced. The 10 lawyer in question referred to was a Vanessa Magee M.A.L lawyer, the document was essentially a One (1) Paragraphs, including wrong/misleading and incomplete information, of which the appellant knows it should have known as to be is incorrect.

Namely where the lawyer had M.A.L retain employment applicant data for Six Months (where as it is 36 months MINIMUM), according to the Global privacy statement policy.

102. The court is not evidently aware 8 that the retention, of data for a needlessly long timeframe is for its own benefit as to data mine, extracting value from volumes of data as to practices, trends / characteristics /patters these have a commercial attraction $.

Namely but not limited to M.A.L perfecting A.I use as to the age/s of Applicant/s, I.E. as an enable discrimination stated and permitted to occur. Where the currency applications are 30 DAYS, yet M.A.L retain data Three Years (applicants not employed by M.A.L franchise), (7 Years if employed)

103. Where the court ha [sic] it that it can therefore would not consider Commonwealth legislation, as to matters before the court. Where the appellant has it that this is in want, abuse of power and bad faith. 104 Where the court had powers pursuant but to but not limited to THE JUDICIAL ACT 1903 s 55F/ s 80 and or but not limited to COMMONWEALTH F AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT· SECT (51) subsection 10/14/15/25/35/39 sl09/ s 117/ s 118. S 424 /454 QLD I.R act, AU HR  Act s 4, C.O.R.D 9.l, 13.1.

105. Where the court make a choice error, in having the Commonwealth legislation, not "able" to be considered in a state court. Where the appellant made such efforts, and where the court, declined / refused, at the cost, and deliberate detriment to the appellant that being described as corruption.

106. Where the commonwealth legislation to but not limited to the Australian Privacy Act 1988 is stated as offended by the respondent, for commercial gain by way of perfecting the software/ A.I. Machine Learning (M.L) as to identifying Age/ager characteristics and thus cognizant of age/s and the award structure that has younger at lower hourly rate, pursue the option on balance at the detriment as to the likelihood of employment to those older thus more "expensive"

106.Correction the O.A.I.C, has identified in as yet unpublished documents, provided to the appellant the of the Six (6) not Eight (8) Determinations of a Privacy breaches as confirmed breaches. One being Telstra. The O.A.I.C determined but Eight (8) and ONLY 6 of 402 where determined to be breaches, 1 in 425 chance of any formal determination, has and is Mc Donald's licenced to breach the act/s

Where M.A.L breached the Privacy act not limited to refusing without a written explanation (this is a legislated requirement)

107. M.AL are the subject of complaints that the court may benefit from the O.A.I.C oversight of the practice, as to privacy that have M.A.L utilize vast amounts of data for commercial gain, read reasoning has it l.3 Million individuals' data is with M.A.L. the O.A.I.C. commissioner a Angelene Falk is alledged [sic] incompetent and corrupt.

108. Alteration M.A.L have Seventeen (17) matters before the courts, reflective of the foreign "Gung Ho "attitudes "Over Represented, Over Paid and Over Here "M.A.L. 109.Where the court has not weighed the fact that the third S.F.A.C was directed as to be submitted was a direction with NO application made by the applicant (now Appellant), council for the respondent indeed "anyone". It was the sole arbitrary power, improper decision of the Deputy Merrell, of whom then as now does not have the confidence of the appellant. Where the duration has precluded the matter being fair and prompt.

110. Where O.H. S/ H.S/ Heightened R.S.I considerations are ignored, disrespected by the respondent/court/ state/commonwealth. The S.F.A.C are onerous (to a degree) suggested as to the direction was to attrition so as to be increasingly less likely as to be complied with thus the basis of compliance).             

112. Commonwealth entities variously oversight/ possible legal advice assistance has been sought; The oversight efforts are poorly received as to be dismissed improperly, to and included of efforts, they include the A.C.C.C., Fair Work Commission and The Australian Human Rights Commission, O.A.L.C, AU A/G Dept.

113. Where the first to mention Vexatious was the court (Davis) this was partial, and a "dog whistle" (coded) to the council as to the distaste for the volume, council never sought relief as to vexatious, thus the notion mute, Where the court refused for many months to assist the applicant to obtain transcripts, improperly having the matter with R.T.S of whom are unreliable and refused to email transcripts where the transcripts where improperly delayed.

114. Where the state essentially (seek/s) to ignores the appellant under the guise of volume, when the failing as to the contents, in the initial and later stages is with individuals, to and including Attorney Generals for the appellant and justice are dire indeed. Notwithstanding the volume if any, clearly identifies the want of parties (excluding the appellant).

115. Where the court directed documents be provided to the court, variously repeatedly and extensively.

116. Where the court did not inform the appellant, that a document may only be provided to the court subject to in advance the party direct to comply had the opportunity to have the document considered by a lawyer.

117. Where the court in directing the documents most if not all where NOT ones HAVING RECEIVED legal consideration prior to being submitted.

Event if as occurred, standing beside the road with a piece of paper, and advice as to a  S.F.A.C via a  phone call is marginal.

118. Where th.is being so the court acted in want as to not to inform the appellant of their rights and or in the alternative documents were weight by the court improperly and outside of due process/ equality of arms (for 9 access did not meet, and does not meet the requirements as to access.) Where this conflicts with the corporate respondents essentially unlimited access.

…

  1. [47]
    It could be inferred from the above that the Appellant raises issues relating to discovery. The Appellant does not articulate the form of the relief that has been sought. However, I will consider these matters further below.
  1. [48]
    The submissions of 2 February 2024 are in the following form:

1 that Nichola Longhurst made an application, understood as to be a form 4 that was without referencing pursuant to, namely the required pursuant to was not identified I.E blank. The date of the application is not as the form is not before the application is not stated, but within appeal/s timespan. To avoid confusion, the form was filed improperly. 2. Recent self-efforts ongoing and significant by the appellant have identified assistance option/s recently rather discreet option possibly to be furnished to the S.R.L Representations to the commonwealth include to Lace Wang, Tamsyn, Hervey Katherine Jones P.S.M Mark Dreyfus of the A/G Dept. ET AL outside of s 55 Judiciary act, as 63 L.A.Q act as to the provision, potential of legal advice/ assistance, (funding?) to but not limited to but arguably including various options within the Judiciary act where the Commonwealth, under the Australian Constitution speaks to the basis of the sought assistance, where the Commonwealth has not chosen to reply.

Where the commonwealth has provided NO assistance, and the state, dubious to incompetent and limited advice. Where one other or both failed as to the assistance provided.

"An effective justice system must be accessible in all its parts. Without this, the system risks losing its relevance to, and the respect of, the community it serves. Accessibility is about more than ease of access to sandstone buildings or getting legal advice. It involves an appreciation and understanding of the needs of those who require the assistance of the legal system." (Former)Attorney-General Robert McClelland.

Foreword to the Report of the Access to Justice Taskforce, September 2009.3. Where access to justice is stated as to be in want within A.D 2021/7 Appeals. where the appellant has the matters being unsound but limited to the lack of access to justice. 4 Where the associate to then commissioner Hartigan has had a complaint made against them. For the allegation, is that the associate to conveyed (read or like) to the then commissioner a privileged document/s. Where the determination, is yet to be received. 5. Where there is a Human Rights complaint made of the Q.I.R.C where the response remains as not yet provided. 6. Where there are numerous and yet varied complaints of state and Commonwealth entities, as to the inactions of staff/ lawyers. These remains as yet unresolved.

7.Where the #1 submission, was sent to chambers without a seal, and without the appellant receiving as per the I.R and or other act/s required, was not provided a copy. Where the Customer service manager, when asked "if there was anything in relation to the #1 submission the appellant should know?" Jessica H" No"

8Where the appellant has within the last 17 odd days, came to possess some 500 pages, of documents.

This is less than already provided to the appellant.

Where a mobile device / printing costs and very limited public computer access (where the court has refused to assist that is direction council/s as to ensure access) has the volume problematic and considerably more difficult to the appellant than the respondent and arguably the court.

9where the nearest public library for some time does not for whatever reason have functioning access to the email service provider thus clearly impacting the appellant.

  1. [49]
    The nature of the interlocutory relief sought by the Appellant with respect to the issues raised in the submissions is not apparent from the face of the 2 February 2024 written submissions.

Application for further documents

  1. [50]
    As noted above, the decision which is the subject of both appeals is the decision to, inter alia, dismiss the proceedings following three unsuccessful attempts by the Appellant to file a proper Statement of Facts and Contentions.
  1. [51]
    Section 557(1) of the IR Act provides that a decision of the Commission may be appealed on the following grounds:

557Appeal from commission

  1. The Minister or another person aggrieved by a decision of the commission may appeal against the decision to the court on the ground of—
    1. error of law; or
    2. excess, or want, of jurisdiction.
  1. [52]
    Section 557(2) provides that a decision may be appealed on a ground other than those set out in s 557(1)(a) and (b) with the Court's leave.
  1. [53]
    Whilst the application to appeal in C/2023/31 does suggest the Appellant seeks to appeal on a ground other than error of law or excess or want of jurisdiction, the Application to Appeal does not state what that ground is, nor is leave of the Court sought.
  1. [54]
    The Appellant has not identified, with sufficient particulars, the document/s that they seek or how such documents are relevant to the appeal. In this regard, paragraphs 91 to 93 of the Appellant's submissions refer to there being some many thousands of documents, some of which the Appellant appears to contend are not in the possession or control of the Respondent. In this regard, the Appellant refers to documents held by the "Office of Australian Information Commissioner". Whilst there may be other avenues available for the Appellant to obtain documents from a non-party it does not appear that the Appellant has sought non-party disclosure. The Appellant has, in any event, failed to articulate why such documents would be relevant to the appeal. 
  1. [55]
    Given the terms and nature of the decision that is the subject of the appeal, and in the absence of the articulation of the ground of appeal relied on pursuant to s 557(2) of the IR Act, it is not apparent, in the very broad terms referred to by the Appellant, how the further discovery would be relevant to the proceedings.
  1. [56]
    In the absence of a clearly articulated request for documents in the control and possession of the Respondent and in the absence of submissions outlining how such documents are relevant to the appeal, I am unable to conclude that there is a basis to grant any interlocutory relief with respect to the Appellant's request for documents.
  1. [57]
    In so far as the Appellant has applied for orders relating to the provision of documents, the application is dismissed.

Application for leave to file

  1. [58]
    On 22 February 2024, the Appellant sought to file an application in the proceedings. The application did not articulate within its terms the basis for which leave was sought. 
  1. [59]
    However, on 8 March 2024, the Appellant again sought to file an application.
  1. [60]
    The relief contained in that application was as follows:

Where numerous and varied attempts to obtain legal advice, has been refused (in effect where no reply was recieved) as to the requested advice centrally bit certainly not limited to Legal Aid Queensland.

Where the appellent, has it may appear, a rather very uncertain accsess to a Qld drivers license centrally where T.M.R refuse by way of silence as to waive impost as to matters related to Biometric (access./ and timefrmae as to access claimed but clearly opposed (and with entities as to the opposition) as to be legally enforcabled pre requirement/s as to licence eligility) thus having the appellent, itinerent appellent, at a grave disadvanatgeto the urban"elite" council/ repondents/ member/s.

Where the appellent's rural/ remote travels, require by way of court directed provision, of documnets be provided to the court, thus and the only option is unreliable public libarary acces, to and including outright refused access.

Thus the license, issue is expotientially with the appeplent as to very limited to no public transport, that council/ repondent/member would on balance object to, shopuld thety face the same or similiar challanges in the C.B.D

There is or maybe understood as to be issues as to vehicle registration, clear issues it maybe said ..., there was and is clear issues as to transportation, generally and importantly, for without a license and a registered vehicle, the itinerent appellent, is definetaly impacted significantly in the negative.

Where without advice, the efforts, of the appellent are (often as to universally) considered in want/ error or such as not to be readily considered / required consider, to and incluing where the member censors  the efforts of the appellent.

Where the want/error/etc, is no conceeded, as to be with the appellent. Where advice is sought, not to be had and uncertain to be had

Where in the absence of advice the appelent, is and has little to no choice as to seek to comply with the questioned directions however it consumes considerable effort/ "time" to and arguably greater that council. Where a stay is sought for such time as to be considered as to be in the interest's of justice. Where the appellent  sues the largest employer of juniors in Australia by brand for age discrimination/ unlawful request for information, Where the matter has national significance, (for the careers page is national), wheres 117 Australian constitution "Rights of residents in States . A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State."

  1. [61]
    On 12 March 2024, the Appellant sought to file a further application seeking the following relief:

Where the member, imposed the requirement as to submit an application, as to submit an application, in laymans terms, the application, was to seek leave to have a further/ other application as to relief /and or like sought. Essentially permission, as to make an applicatiom [sic]. Where the appliationis this as to earlier applications, that subject ot leave being granted, the application maybe made.

Where the applications where leave is sought as to matters,, relates to the inability as to obtain legal advice and such elief [sic] as to stay/ etc, in the interst's [sic] of justice demand, I.E legal advice as to submission/s directed 15/3/24

  1. [62]
    The Appellant was asked to confirm if the application for leave was with respect to the applications they sought to file dated 8 March 2024 and 12 March 2024.
  1. [63]
    Whilst the written responses of the Appellant to the Industrial Registry do not explicitly confirm that leave was sought in relation to the applications respectively dated 8 and 12 March 2024, the determination of the matter has proceeded on that basis.
  1. [64]
    Each of the applications of 8 March 2024 and 12 March 2024 seek to stay the appeals pending the Appellant seeking legal advice. The Appellant filed written submissions in support of the application on 15 March 2024. These submissions are wide ranging in subject matter and are not readily able to be summarised in an efficient way so as to convey the context, tone and nature of the submissions.  Consequently, the submissions are annexed as Annexure B to these reasons.
  1. [65]
    The history of the matter[18] identifies that the Appellant has filed or, attempted to file, 38 applications in the appeal proceedings.
  1. [66]
    The Appellant's submissions of 15 March 2023 do not address any factual matters, nor do they make submissions, as to why the Court should grant leave to file the further applications.
  1. [67]
    Relevantly, the Appellant has not provided any persuasive basis as to why, at this stage of the proceedings, a stay should be granted to permit the Appellant to seek legal advice. From the submissions filed in the matter it appears that the Appellant has attempted to seek legal advice on a number of occasions and has been dissatisfied with that process. There is nothing before the Court to suggest that any further attempts by the Appellant to seek legal advice would satisfy the Appellant.
  1. [68]
    Further, the Appellant does not provide a basis as to why it is necessary to stay the appeals whilst they seek legal advice. It is not incompatible for the appeals to remain on foot whilst the Appellant seeks legal advice if that is what they wish to do. Given that the appeals were filed on 9 July 2023, the Appellant has had considerable time to seek to obtain legal advice.
  1. [69]
    The appeal proceedings have, to this date, been delayed by the nature and number of the interlocutory applications filed by the Appellant. It is in the interests of all parties that the hearing of the appeals proceeds without further delay and costs.
  1. [70]
    For these reasons, I dismiss the Appellant's application for leave to file a further application in the proceedings.

Orders

  1. [71]
    For above reasons, I make the following orders:
  1. The application consolidating all outstanding interlocutory applications is dismissed.
  2. The application for leave to file a further application in the proceedings is dismissed.

ANNEXURE A

A.D 2021/7 R v M.A.L

Applicants appeal as to the dismissal of said matter.

1. Where pursuant to 557 (2) I.R act the applicant seeks leave that the appeal is heard on grounds other than 557 (1).

Where actions variously repeatedly and numerously have visited and been sought imposed of the applicant centrally as to social standing and presumed want.

Where from and including customer service unit to the Q.I.R.C President Davis impropriety is alledged.

Where the respondent and council are included, even if by way of such benefits as to the action/s inaction/s of parties and individuals. Where variously and numerously the applicant was sought reckless indifference as to punitive exclusion.

2. Where the applicant a S.R.L was vilified, and victimized for their long standing efforts as to transparency and accountability long known (from the first day of a Two Year Plus arguably saga)

Where commissioner Dwyer, Deputy Merrell, the Registrar Shelley and President Davis, Customer Service unit manager Jessica "Jess“ and Client service Coordinator Brianna where all complained of variously to and including P.I.D/S.

3. Where issues where variously made known or attempted made known to the president, C.M.C, D.J.A.G (Ethical standards) Manager Neil Lawson The Minister "Grace Grace" Shannon Fentiman, Yvette Darth, Anastasia Palaszczuk, Premier and Cabinet portfolio.

> > > Where the applicant was deliberately excluded from receiving replies as to such efforts. Limited to auto replies, generally as to exclusively.

Where politicians are involved despite (but because of their inaction, official misconduct).

4. Where the applicants was and remains largely ignored (or rather sought ignored) where parties named individually to collectively have offended

S 101 Anti-discrimination act (a)(b)(c)(d)(e).

Crime and Misconduct act s 35 (1) (a) re a complaint as Per s 14 (a) (b) (c).

Where in A.D 2021/7 Robertson V Mc Donalds Australia Limited.

5. The but not limited to the following occurred.

Where the matter was transferred from the Q.H.R C without applicant’s address being recorded.

Where legislation has it as mandatory.

Where council did not list S.R.L's address in notice of appointment.

Within what was proposed as conciliation.

the member Commissioner Dwyer herein (C.D) sought to question the S.R.L as to (implied/imputed) mental health issues if any in announced and extraneous (vile) manner. Where then for the question was both predatory and repugnant.

Directly following my reply (declined to reply) words to the effect 'without knowing I cannot assist you".

Where members assistance is not sought.

Where the likelihood of needing assistance was not with the S.L.R leastways not from the commissioner, and with such behaviors.

6. Where the applicant is now aware that the member within events (over some Months) violated Australian and New Zealand code of conduct 4.1.

S 101 A.D act.a/b/c/d/e

S 15 Qld Human Rights act

The right to a fair trial.

S 35 (a) (1) Crime and Act, as Per S 14 Official misconduct.

Where within conciliation (C.D) did not explain the interlocutory process.

Did not state the call was recorded.

Did not inform the S.R.L their rights did not caution the applicant.

7. Where the arguments as presented as to the claim/case by the applicant was stated by (C) D' quote "it would fail" unquote.

Prejudgment is stated of C.D.

Where a notion an idea if you will by (C.D), where the idea was unsought as to how the matter maybe settled (so to speak).Money /monies form the basis for most settled matters, where the notion may have been rejected....

Essentially the applicant was told the argument/case would "fail" and a sum of money was spoken of.

8. Where the applicant us now aware thus was Undue power and influence.

Where (later within events) C.D quote Vulnerable unquote of the applicant.

Where the applicant was by way of imputed as to health failings.

9. Matters it maybe said declined thereafter and Two Years

Two Months and a Week later matters revisit the commission/Industrial court. It is noted at public expense.

10. Where M.A.L violated Equity of arms

Excess of council, where M.A.L has 17 plus Lawyers however choose to retain council.

Where council was 2S/C where 2 Barristers where retained without notice, appearing without notice or leave (1applied 1did not)        

Where the (C) Dwyer did not in the first instance inform the S.R.L as to the option to appeal the granted leave (first C.B.P 2 lawyers then later 2 Barristers.       

11. Where the President was emailed repeatedly numerously as to the excess of C.D.

Where there was NO reply.

Where administration of the Q.i.R.C is their responsibility

Where the registrar stated (15/5/21) that carriage was with C.D.

Where the S.F.A.C was understandable.

12. Where council repeatedly lied as to not being able to understand any S.F.A.C.

Where C.D ordered the applicant retain and maintain council.

Where L.A.Q and not unnoted the legal "industry" had little to no interest.

L.A.Q merit test was silently (I alledge) considered L.A.Q.

sought to distance themselves insofar as possible.

13. Where the order to retain and maintain council was by design onerous vile.

Where the deputy imputed (unannounced) health as to be central and thus the impost.

Where the applicant was aware of rather more as to events than the commissioner.

Where a lawyer was for all intents and purposes not to be had.

Where some 35 plus parties including primarily lawyers, advocates, unions groups rejected overtones as to their interest.

14 L.A.Q refused advice past 2 sessions.

Where access to "justice" was not had, properly adequately or as required.

Where 2 (Hour) sessions of advice is inadequate as to farcical.

Where the applicant's efforts where the greater part of 1000 Hours.

Where the costs both financial, and personally are considerable as to unwise.

Where O.H.S / H.S considerations where not respected.

15. Where council deliberately consumed in near all instances the entirety of the permitted timeframes as to events Where the replies (misleading) to S.F.A.C alone consumed greater than Three Months.

Where there was and is no difficulty in the case being presented as unpopular to exceedingly rare and unusual Where the order was appealed.

16. Where the appeal was the sole effort of the applicant where the appeal consumed Sixty (60) Hours.

Where a Peta Willoughby appeared without leave within the appeal process or as understood (where they / She did seek leave within the mention or as understood before the President).

Where the applicant contested the granted, where the President "Horse traded".

Where the Barrister (of whom had it would held had no brief to do so waived

Where the applicant is itinerant.

17. Owns no computer (capable of word).

Where public access computers and virtual assistants  the only option as to satisfy the Q.I.R.C requirements.

Where an application to have the "word' type format waived was dismissed

Where form 2a was used as to enquire as to the commissions position that I may email (a schedule) attachment.

Where anonymous (repeatedly anonymous) replies refused to file the application "the matter is finalized".

Where the matter was not finalized

Where the applicant employed a virtual assistant (the Fourth).

Where the applicant then to ensure its presentation and as to the extent possible as to oversight the appeal. travelled 120 kilometers as to access a public computer

They however did not require or appreciate needless impost by way of a emailed (schedule) in this appeal.

18. The Commissioner Dwyer order.

Where Peta Willoughby as a barrister had certain professional standards required of them / her.

She choose for reasons best known to her to offend the professional considerations.

Where the appeal was upheld.

Where the matter was then before the deputy Merrell.

Did matters improve?

They did not

Where the applicant is itinerant.

19.Owns no computer (capable of word).

Where public access computers and virtual assistants of the only option as to satisfy the Q.I.R.C requirements. “word " document.

Where an application to have the "word' type format waived was dismissed

Where form 2a was used as to enquire as to the commissions position that I may email (a schedule) attachment.

20. Where anonymous (repeatedly anonymous) replies refused to file the application "the matter is finalized". Where the matter was not finalized that appeal/s maybe made.

Where

Where the applicant travelled 110 Kilometers as to access a public access computer.

Where the newly introduced policy excludes the applicant for an appeal consumes greater than Two Hours.

21. Where One local council has a Two Hour Maximum use (despite there being no other/s seeking to utilize the computer).        

Where access to a computer “word” deice has been on Four occasions, refused, Rockhampton, Mackay, Southern Downs, Gympie Regional councils.       

Where the refusal was based on local policy as to require membership as to access computer terminal use. Where the requirement is not standard, nor ethical, or legally required. Where however the applicant was further disadvantaged.

22. Where the refusals and limits, presented as a serious issue as to access to resources.

Where the respondent has no practical limits as to resources. Where M.A.L has a market value of some 1.4 Billion Dollars.

23.Where the disparity between the respondent and the applicant are at the higher /highest end. Where the commission council and the respondent are aware as to this being or likely being accurate. Where a lawyer was for all intents and purposes not to be had. Where some 35 parties primarily lawyers and to a lesser degree advocates, unions, groups rejected overtones as to their interest.

L.A.Q refused advice past 2 sessions.Where access to "justice" was not had, properly adequately or as required.

Where 2 (Hour) sessions of advice over 2 Years and 14 Mentions or as understood is inadequate as to farcical.

Primarily farce and contrary to s 15 QLD H.R.A Right to a fair trial.

23. Where the applicant's efforts consumed Hundreds of Hours literally.

Where the applicant stopped counting some time ago

Where the costs both financial, and personally are considerable as to unwise.

Where O.H.S / H.S considerations where not respected.

Where council deliberately consumed in near all instances the entirety of the permitted timeframes as to events Where the replies (misleading) to S.F.A.C alone consumed greater than Three Months.

24. Where there was and is no difficulty in the case being presented as unpopular to exceedingly rare and unusual

Where the order as to retain, maintain legal representation was appealed.

Where the appeal was the sole effort of the applicant where the appeal consumed Sixty (60) Hours.

Where a Peta Willoughby appeared without leave within the appeal process or as understood (where they / She did seek leave within the mention or as understood before the President).

25.Where the applicant contested the appearance, where despite the improper route and process that saw a Barrister simply appear announced to the applicant.       

Where the President "Horse traded".

Where the Barrister (of whom had it would held had no brief to do so waived costs)

Where Leanne Dearlove had in an abuse of process stated M.A.L intended to pursue costs.

26. Why this is presented as to considered is that the President despite no application from the applicant  engaged (in a conversation) Ms. Willoughby, as to costs.

Would M.A.L not seek costs of the applicant, contingent that leave to appear would be granted

Willoughby agreed, by way of self-interest, namely a substantial fee I.E hers.

27.Where the applicant was of the position, that due process was not for the act by the president was unsought and partial (however well meaning).

Partial revisited events later, and the president features centrally, as to be alledged variously as to breach s 35 1(a) Crime and Misconduct act, where s 14 a/b/c/d/e is the definition (official misconduct).

28. Where D.M (Deputy Merrell) dismissed applications where the applicant sought a stay (not less than however understood on Four occasions).

Where the stay was based on L.A. Q’s delays, as to sought oversight of a refusal to provide legal advice. Where the practice of L.A.Q is limit advice, legal advice to One session, per matter.

Where the applicant received Two sessions.

Where L.A.Q refused point blank or as understood a to refuse further advice.

Where the applicant, despite this requested variously and numerously advice.

Where it was refused

29. Where the applicant identified the need and the materially altered matters that required (on balance) legal; advice by way of “access to justice”.

Where the materially altered case, matters, where refused.

Where the applicant sought oversight.

Where after SIX AND A HALD MONTHS, L.A.Q has not made a determination.

Where L.A.Q the matter as being “unique”.

Where the matter is held as to be “pioneering” Michael Strong L.A.Q oversight manager.

30. Where after FIVE Months, legal advice was not had (by L.A.Q) as to the matter.

This was stated, this reflects the inaction that has altered a court matter.

Where the applicant is unarguably (most certainly on balance) disadvantaged.

Where three attorney generals where emailed as to s 63 of the legal; aid act.

Where directive/s where sought considered.

Where Two of Three (FENTTIMAN, AND D’ARTH) did not reply, and did not its noted formally receipt the sought directive.      

ANNEXURE B

P1 C/2023/29-C/2023/31 R V M.A.L.

Appellant’s submission as per direction.

1 Noted the respondent’s corporate council choose not to speak to the quote of Easterbrook, it is alledged as reflective of the nefarious and illegal practices with M.A.L, (Wholly U.S/ foreign owned). “Disgraced former McDonald’s CEO, Steve Easterbrook, returned over $105 million in equity and cash to the fast food chain after the company “learned that he had lied about the extent of his misconduct while he was its top executive” the Associated Press reported.”  This is understood as misleading statements to Mc Donald’s board numerous sexual relations and potentially, images of a naked/sexual nature. Where M.A.L seek commercial advantage by way of ascertaining all in store applicant’s ages within the screening processes, as to potential recruitment being reflective of the dubious actions of the respondent, alledged licenced by O.I.R /QIRC and potentially I.C

2 The Appellant’s applications to appeal, filed in the Industrial Court of Queensland on 9 July 2023 (Appeals), challenge the decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) in Robertson v McDonald’s Australia Limited (No. 8) [2023] QIRC 192, delivered on 26 June 2023 (Decision).

3 The Commission’s Decision determined to dismiss the Appellant’s complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (AD Act) in proceedings AD/2021/7 (Substantive Proceedings). Where the Three (3) S.F.A.C where filed, this is uncontroversial.

4 Where should the S.A.F.C /s have been near incoherent / incoherent the statement/s would pursuant to the legislation be filed. Where the SA.F.Cs were and remain coherent, simply requiring a certain amount of appetite, intellect and grace

Where the member’s agreement with the respondent’s corporate council was and is seen as preferable to a determination, based on the actual contents, corrupt, official misconduct, malfeasance, misfeasance

5 Where the respondent sought by way of gas lighting, to isolate further the itinerant S.R.L.

Where questions as to their ability presented by both Dwyer (C) and Merrell (D.P) convenient by way of dog whistling presented the opportunity as to have the matters considered by way of impugned want as to disability rather than the both fundamental and more complex contents of the S.F.A.C.

Where the S.F.A.C on balance where written without legal advice to the contents,

6 Where the right is sought denied to use their language, (s 27) plus the right to privacy and reputation, and right as not to be treated in a degrading manner, including such questions from members, and the inequity of arms and unannounced reasoning as to administrative/ “judicial” actions/inactions

s 27 persons with …a linguistic background must not be denied the right in the community with other persons of that background to ….to use their language. As to the lack of understanding? incompetence, indifference arrogance, perjury, individuals and parties are called out as to their choices and behaviours

7 Where Merrell was and is alledged of official misconduct (and worse) as to the behaviours within events, to and including extra judicial to but not limited to including the purported difficulties/impossibilities s to comprehension (S.F.A.C/S). The respondents choose to portray and have thus far been permitted to do so by member’s as to the want purported of S.F.A.C.

8 Where the S.F.A.C considerable and damming, council it is alledged commits perjury in the claim as to incoherent /near incoherent

9 The abiding and fractious behaviours for the central as to sole aim as to misappropriate the rights of an individual by of parties (excluding the appellant) are distressing, H.R complaint/s are with the I.C as to matter/s, re alledged violations/

10 The S.F.A.C were/ did and continue to have M.A.L on notice.

P2 11 Respondent at (7) seeks to again mislead the court where sought relief has included d direction/s to L.A.Q as to IF it will provide advice (currently by way of silence advice whilst sought is essentially refused by way no answer being received since last year as to availability previously but at refuse.

12 Relief as to the state providing access to a lawyer/ advocate (advice only) was refused.

13 Where council seeks by way of the disparity between parties understanding /intellect as to seek to preclude the S.R..L’S standing. Where council/ respondent/ member/s assume the disparity favours said same., where this presents as convenient and rather it is less than certain, presumption will only “go” go so far.

14 Where there are matters that remain outside of the knowledge of the members as to events to and including at senior Sate AND Commonwealth levels.

15 Where formally requested documents I.P/R.T.I sought over some months and months and yet presently present a challenge, the result of which the parties do not benefit from the clarity of to whom and on which basis acted to preclude/ refuse such rights as bit state and commonwealth legislation, afford (in theory),

16 Where there are some Thousands of pages related to matters, to this day (even) the appellant does not have access to all, sought and relevant documents

17 Where public servants state and Commonwealth have it comes to pass have interfered with such rights centrally s 63 QLD L.A.Q.

18 Namely whom refused access to relief sought is not completely transparent, it has been established as to have been a D.J.A.G, ministerial staff (Vivian/ Alysia)/ Chief of staff Simon Zanatta / Yvette Dath and a senior lawyer (Lace Wang) with the Australian Attorney general department, legal assistance unit have interfered with the rights as to relief, in the first of Two sought directives, the second and arguably the most important has been arguably thus far and conveniently not made available.

19 The recusal of the member Hartigan remains sought for the decision not to recuse herself was made without the knowledge of the appellant’s complaint to Queensland Police, attempt to pervert justice / perjury. Where Hartigan presided in an earlier matter A.D. 2021/6 R v Q.F.M.A.T.

19 Where now aware of the allegations, the member remains unmoved, where the member has NONE of the appellant’s confidence or trust, is a series of events that speak violations by the member.

20 The respondent is hostile by way not limited to stating the intention to seek costs, failing to expedite S.F.A.C responses, 2/3 being no sooner that the last due date 3/3 simply having the confusion purported as to preclude an actual detailed response where council is its alledged servile, disingenuous, pusillanimous and dishonest Moved as to the commercial interests of C.B.P, and their corporate client.

21 Choosing, not to ACTUALLY explain what they purported not to understand in S.F.A.C/s was and is the aim of the misleading statements to the court by council, in simplest terms council/ respondents did not tell the truth, they told what is readily understood as to be the opposite commonly understood as to be lie/s.

22 Invited as to confusion purported but not credible, the court and council/ respondents where all asked as to any sought explanation/ engagement ALL parties choose NOT TO ENGAGE.

23 Where parties save the appellant seek to take liberties as to events that centrally as to have the matter dismissed, as to avoid actually answering to the allegation as to practices that have a considerable / huge commercial attraction I.E Youth wages, non/less unionized workforce

23 Of 11 (b), Paramount duty is violated by both corporate lawyers (Dearlove /Prowse) and M.A.L all approached as to such information M.A.L hold. Where information, sought pursuant to A.A.P 12 was refused by Prowse without written reasoning this reasoning is a statutory requirement, A.P.P 12 12.82,”12.82 APP 12.9 provides that if an APP entity refuses to give access, or to give access in the manner requested by the individual, the entity must

P3 give the individual a written notice setting out: • the reasons for the refusal, except to the extent that it would be unreasonable to do so…”

24 Self-evident council /respondent violate commonwealth legislation complaints to the incompetent and provincial O.A.I.C are essentially ignored. Dearlove claimed as per standard confusion as to sought information held by M.A.L provincial, manipulative actions by both preclude the paramount duty bar being meet.

25 of 11 (c) Council did not reply when repeatedly when questioned as to if the respondent made an application pursuant to 463/464 I.R act as to national employer standards.

24 Where Merrell D.P cites 463/464 as precluding an order to the respondent as to cease the D.O.B question for those of whom may /would be those reading/ applying for QLD in store positions, Where the court distressingly and improperly ignores the question and right to work documents PRIOR to any job offer, precedence p 36 WILMOTT v Woolworths Where Council NOW ADMIT DESPITE HAVING THREE MONTHS to do so (NO APPLICATION WAS MADE), where there is an error in law as to the D. P’s decision to dismiss the application as to have D.O.B mandated cease Re Queensland  in store  applicant/s  “463  Power  to  make declarations  about industrial matters (1) The commission may, on application by an entity mentioned in section 464, make a declaration about an industrial matter.”.11 (d) relates to any application pursuant to 463/464.

25 Where council has claimed confusion to often as to be reliable claim, where the disparity can or maybe understood as to be One or both of the disparity by way of intelligence talent / honesty. Perjury is alledged of but not limited to Dearlove,

26 11 (e) Leave to appear was (improperly its alledged) granted to Colin Biggers and Paisley (Dearlove and Prows) noted council fails to state M.A.L has some 17 lawyers of its own indulged much council seeks to misappropriate the narrative. Council WAS NOT TO PRIVATE GRANTED TO PRIVATE COUNCIL (save for another Barrister Willoughby, Peta) where the error (choice) of Merrell D.P was improper as to have a barrister (Mc Lean appeared without actually applying for leave), the dishonesty (not with the appellant) within events is breathtaking and distressing.

27 Noted the court. Council and respondent do not speak to “equity of arms”: and abstract i.e. it does not exist past a notion, an expectation long and deliberately ignored by parties not naturally the appellant, licensed by the court and luxuriated in by council and the respondent Five lawyers and Two Barrister MINIMUM and the S.R.L has to by way of askance as to even possible legal advice, Where the member Hartigan, is alledged corrupt and incompetent as to have granted leave for private council to the respondent despite NO leave being sought Re said same. Abuse of power, malfeasance/ misfeasance is alledged as is again attempt to pervert the course of justice, Hartigan.

28 Where the substantive matter was and is considered a mistrial and relief is sought as to the matter being reheard in the Federal court in the alternative reheard, properly with the S.R.L being ordered as to be provided reasonable resources, and the respondent with some 17 Lawyer fighting their own battles as opposed to the spineless and commercial efforts thus far. Noted (an application, to this was made and dismissed by D.P Merrell, incompetence is alledged of Merrell,

29 Where the appeals were and are considered unsafe and unsound, / mistrial. Not limited to the five pages that preclude the wide and depth matters have sunk to unworkable as to a waste of public funds arguably within events

30 Where the public is unaware of the unusual series of events where the member files subject to her sole and alledged corrupt appetite as to do so applications.

31 She in a series on controversial and needless events, subject to her appetite to NOT file applications does so, she does not explain none filing, the latest non filed application was as to vacate the applications for further documents being provided to the court by the appellant, So as to avoid the oral mention the alledged corrupt and incompetent member Hartigan directed. The voiding applications were to seek the greatest possible distance for parties, centrally Hartigan, Where the member was and is seen as vindictive, manipulative and by way of bullying etc. etc., seeking an advantage for herself, and the favoured respondent’s council by way of gender, and great personal; distaste for the appellant, of had its noted sough the matters heard on papers, Hartigan is simply not trusted as to judicial matters full stop

P4 32 It is noted the deputy is alledged as unprofessional and not cost effective some $400.000 a year plus for a deputy (there are Two) where silent and unexplained non filing is inappropriate. Where she seeks to alter events, to and including by way of “noble cause” explanation (its proposed) where she thinks (?) she is protecting the court processes and the standing of the court, yet the appellant, sees it as the exact opposite. Alledged as a manipulative vindictive and provincial effort of a publically funded “judge”, real and abiding concerns exist as to the disparity of intellect and intelligence between all parties and the appellant. There is a lot the public do not know of the events.

33 Noted the member is conflicted c/2023/29 –C/2023/31 for the respondents have sought by way of opposition as to the appeal/s the earlier and very very (by a alledged corrupt Member) controversial dismissal by Hartigan of the appellant’s A.D. 2022/6 R v Queensland farm management and training. Where the member permitted a lawyer to appeared without leave and using a Christian name not his (Duncan Grant MC Cartney) appeared slyly as Grant Mc Cartney. Where the member is alledged as to have indulged the …. lawyer as to events where the appellant had (and has yet and within R v.M.A.L utilize post offices in address AND NO RELIEF WAS SOUGHT

34 Where the member acted …. as to matters in support of the …lawyer for M.A.L slyly seeking advantage of a dark and unusual series of events that are held dark indeed, where M.A.L knew or should have known the appellant and the use their own name and postal addresses, where accurate. that due diligence was or should have been done by parties as to the accuracy of the appellant’s entries into documents namely M.A.L /C.B.P knew whom “I” am. Clearly somebody exist it simply happens to be “I” much to the disgust of parties. Noted transcripts have been release to the appellant after a glacial provincial effort, thus it means the I was and its noted and clearly was as documents would have “me” as to afford identification, namely the… decision, was insofar as can be said of the member, not correct, inherently unstable this is a coded term, perhaps.

35 Where the Appellant knew then and now the decision, was dubious insofar as can be said “wrong” at best (it is alledged as to have been manipulated by the member as to dispense with the appellant despite and or because intellect intelligence conflicted with rather startlingly, presumed as to be with the advantage as to be hers. Where the member is alledged of attempt to pervert justice as to R V Q.F.M.A.T decision.

36 Where council offends paramount duty in seeking to take advantage of the … decision, by the …. member, where she was assigned as to preside, by the president in a alledged corrupt act, where the member is known or assumed as to oppose (on balance) the actions, of the appellant of whom is nearly universally disliked as to be (needlessly to be sure) detested, for their considerable efforts and accuracy that see the state and commonwealth permit discrimination.

37 Where a series of events amounts to a volume of some Five Thousand pages (a number of which are to this day not despite some months of efforts with the appellant) thus the court does not know, or it is alledged have the appetite as to consider faithfully, properly the document/s. The trial /interlocutory process/appeals process is/are unfair unsafe, unjust unsound to and including bastardy being alledged “class “such as it is distinction, income and social standing all have affected the member’s stances within events seeing clearly incorrectly the matter is beneath the court and of a volume inappropriate as to require such efforts that are required, and have not been afforded by the alledged corrupt member/s deputies/ president/Registrar/C.S.U manager

38 Where the ALL parties save the appellant ignore the “class” social/ legal distinction afforded to corporate applications to M.A.L WHERE NONE are required to list D.O.B / Where in store, and all in store “crew or like are to state correctly D.O.B from which clearly age/s can and have been determined. Months Plus or minus 3-5 based in part of D.O.B being linked to the commencement of “education”. Parties are on notice; they simply claim not to be.

39 Where the D.O.B mandated was IMPOSED on or about ABOUT 16/5/23, DURING AN AGE DISCRIMINATION/UNLAWFUL request for information, utilizing A.I to determine Age/s age plus or minus perhaps some MOTHS, then cognizant of which to offered or not screening interview, where “Right to Work “documents where read as to know absolutely the age/s, and where juniors are higher predominately, despite where M.A.L did /does not advertise for juniors., where key words “student”, then :high school” linked to date/s had the respondent with a highly indicative age/s range “to within single digit, +/- age/s variance.

40 Where this was improper and illegal, for the respondent utilizes SmartRecruiter, as to power the nation “careers” page. Where the respondents encouraging a contravention of the A.D act was ILLEGAL. Where the

P5 cases where improperly co-mingled, and presided on as ONE MATTER 41https://www.forgov.qld.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf_file/0028/416647/Use-of-generative-AI-for-gov- information-sheet.pdf … “August 23- current“

“Queensland Government Enterprise Architecture (QGEA) guideline provides information for Queensland Government agencies on the recommended practices for a given topic area. Guidelines are for information only and are intended to help agencies understand the appropriate approach to addressing a particular issue or doing a particular task. Key takeaways…

All official government information (including classification levels Sensitive and Protected) and personal information related to employees of the government, or others, should not be shared with, input, or uploaded to generative AI products and services not approved for use by your department

…Explainable AI “There is no simple way to explain how content is produced by generative AI models.”

42 So where the words” incoherent “and” near incoherent”, “mind “are used to besmirch, be-little, isolate in acts of unconscionable, bastardy the by members of the “judiciary”, council including a barrister James McLean, respondents the itinerant S.R.L, self-taught litigant Conflicting with the state’s own “NO SIMPLE WAY“, required seemingly by parties, for the appellant’s efforts ran to Two Hundred Hours as to S.F.A.C! To be treated with distain, hate vengeance and sought manipulation by those of whom should have known better.

The actions, of the members is alledged corrupt / incompetent, as to their confusion purported.

43 Council are shameless corporate enablers, is alledged in light of the Millions of dollars at stake (increased senior employment and thus wage cost) the respondents have sought to do everything in their powers fair means or foul primarily foul (Perjury is a criminal offence, alledged of council centrally Dearlove) as to have the matter dismissed, as to retain the imbalance between the corporate entity and the Australian individuals.

44 Where Qld government employees ARE NOT permitted to use as to generative A.I, yet the court permits M.A.L as to mass, (try 1.3 MILLION personal files with M.A.L) this can and is reasoned as to the volume of staff/ turnover rates and retention protocols (the retention, protocols are NOT listed in M.A.L webpages) Sourced by the use of a researcher, obtained.

45 The courts choices as to the socioeconomic, legal divisions as to afford M.A.L is alledged as to be in opposition to the loathed S.R.L and the “Big end of town” from whence the members 4 of Four at least had their career, I.E corporate barristers, Merrell, Dwyer and Hartigan, Davis, diversity is not as per required.46 Noted some Three years since “conciliation,” and Tens of Thousands of Dollars having been consumed if not wasted the matter IS STILL PURSUED, with no less vigour but with considerable personal outlays, as to Thousand s of Dollars, and greater than 1100 Hours (including travel) by the S.R.L.

Ref Trialdirections.com; Edwards v R [1993] HCA 63 “In other words, in telling the lie the accused must be acting as if he were guilty. It must be a lie which an innocent person would not tell. That is why the lie must be deliberate. Telling an untruth inadvertently cannot be indicative of guilt. And the lie must relate to a material issue because the telling of it must be explicable only on the basis that the truth would implicate the accused in the offence with which he is charged. It must be for that reason that he tells the lie. To say that the lie must spring from a realization or consciousness of guilt is really another way of saying the same thing. It is to say that the accused must be lying because he is conscious that "if he tells the truth, the truth will convict him" “Namely M.A.L / council lied as to incoherent”, “near incoherent” as to avoid a formal response to the clear allegations, again for perhaps the Tenth time presented Para 39. Namely Council /M.A.L lied to protect their own guilt.AU/N.Z Judicial code of conduct #4 point 1/2/4/3/5 are offended by Hartigan, within events to date. Of the times parties have been put on notice, umpteen.

47 Parties excluding the S.R.L assumed advantages do not exist to the degree they hope wish and …assumed. This is self-evident it is however not acknowledged or proposed as to the explanation, as to parties “confusion” convenient though it is. Long story.

Footnotes

[1]Matters C/2023/29 and C/2023/31.

[2]Further Directions Order dated 24 November 2023.

[3]Directions Order dated 29 February 2024.

[4]in AD/2021/7.

[5]Matters C/2023/29 and C/2023/31.

[6]Robertson v McDonald's Australia (No 8) [2023] QIRC 192.

[7]Ibid at [66].

[8]up to an including 5 April 2024.

[9]A number of interlocutory applications were rejected from filing pursuant to r 100(1) and (2) of the Industrial Relation Tribunals (Rules) 2011 (Qld). 

[10]Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2023] ICQ 027 at [5] to [15].

[11]on 13 October 2023 at 1.39pm.

[12]Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2023] ICQ 027.

[13]Transcript of hearing on Friday, 24 November 2023 at page T1-5, paras 36–46.

[14]Transcript of hearing on Friday, 24 November 2023 at page T1-9, paras 23–24.

[15]Transcript of hearing on Friday, 24 November 2023 at page T1-14, paras 4–22.

[16]Transcript of hearing on Friday, 24 November 2023 at page T1-14, paras 27–29.

[17]Transcript of hearing on Friday, 24 November 2023 at page T1-11, paras 24–46.

[18]up to 5 April 2024.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 3)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 3)

  • MNC:

    [2024] ICQ 9

  • Court:

    ICQ

  • Judge(s):

    Hartigan DP

  • Date:

    02 May 2024

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary Judgment[2024] ICQ 902 May 2024-
Notice of Appeal FiledFile Number: CA 6981/2431 May 2024-
Appeal Discontinued (QCA)File Number: CA 6981/2404 Nov 2024-

Appeal Status

Appeal Discontinued (QCA)

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1993] HCA 63
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2023] ICQ 27
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] ICQ 27
Cite 2 - [2023] ICQ 27
Cite 3 - [2023] ICQ 27
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 8) [2023] QIRC 192
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 192
Cite 2 - [2023] QIRC 192
Cite 3 - [2023] QIRC 192
Cite 4 - [2023] QIRC 192

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.