Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2017
  4. Nesterowich v Acting Assistant Commissioner Platz - [2017] QCAT 139

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Nesterowich v Acting Assistant Commissioner Platz[2017] QCAT 139

Nesterowich v Acting Assistant Commissioner Platz[2017] QCAT 139

CITATION:

Nesterowich v Acting Assistant Commissioner Deborah Platz [2017] QCAT 139

PARTIES:

Kurt Alexander Nesterowich

(Applicant)

v

Acting Assistant Commissioner Deborah Platz

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR190-16

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

16 March 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howard

DELIVERED ON:

3 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The review application of Kurt Alexander Nesterowich is struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – Review of Disciplinary Decision – Jurisdiction to Review – where decision made to terminate employment during initial probation of police officer – where application for strike out – whether decision is a reviewable decision – whether decision is a decision about an allegation of corruption

Crime and Corruption Commission Act 2001 (Qld), s 219BA, Schedule 2

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 1.4, s 5.12, s 7.4

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47

Arndt v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2013] QCATA 340

Crime and Corruption Commission v Dawes and Anor [2017] QCAT 66

Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397

Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1

REPRESENTATIVES:

 

APPLICANT:

Mr T Schmidt, of Counsel, instructed by Potts Lawyers, represented Kurt Alexander Nesterowich

RESPONDENT:

Mr S McLeod, of Counsel, instructed by Queensland Police Service Legal Unit, represented the Acting Assistant Commissioner

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Mr Kurt Nesterowich filed an application for review of a decision of Acting Assistant Commissioner Deborah Platz to terminate his employment purportedly under s 5.12(4) of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) (PSA Act). The Acting Assistant Commissioner subsequently filed an application to strike out the review application on the basis that her decision is not a reviewable decision.
  2. [2]
    Mr Nesterowich submits that the decision made is in reality a decision taken in disciplinary action for alleged misconduct which should properly have been brought pursuant to s 7.4 of the PSA Act. Therefore, he says the decision is a reviewable decision under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (CCC Act), because it is a ‘decision made in relation to an allegation of corruption’ against him.[1] The extended definition of ‘corruption’ in the CCC Act includes police misconduct.[2]
  3. [3]
    I have concluded that the Commissioner’s power in s 5.12(4) to terminate the employment of an officer on probation is separate and distinct from disciplinary action that may be taken under s 7.4 of the PSA Act. The Acting Assistant Commissioner was entitled to terminate Mr Nesterowich’s employment under s 5.12(4), and she did so. It follows that the decision is not a reviewable decision and that the application for review should be struck out, pursuant to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).[3]

The decision made by the Acting Assistant Commissioner

  1. [4]
    On the face of it, the Acting Assistant Commissioner made a decision, exercising the (delegated) power of the Commissioner provided for in s 5.12(4) of the PSA Act to terminate a probationary constable during his first 12 months of service. It is uncontroversial that she held a proper delegation.
  2. [5]
    She issued a notice to Mr Nesterowich, inviting him to show cause why he should not be terminated from his role of Constable because alleged conduct, that if proven against him, may demonstrate that he is not a fit and proper person to be confirmed as a police officer. The notice stated, in bold, ‘This is not a disciplinary hearing.’ The allegations made relate to ‘inappropriate interactions with sworn members’ and ‘unlawful public conduct that resulted in the issue of a public nuisance infringement notice following an incident in Fortitude Valley on 4 December 2015.’
  3. [6]
    Specifically, it was alleged as follows:

That on the 4th day of December 2015 at Fortitude Valley, Brisbane your conduct was improper in that you whilst off duty:

  1. (a)
    behaved in a manner towards other police officers that was unprofessional, argumentative and unwarranted;
  1. (b)
    failed to meet the standards expected of a First Year Constable in the Queensland Police Service;
  1. (c)
    failed to meet reasonable standards expected by the general public of Queensland when dealing with police officers.

Further and better particulars:

  1. Your off duty behaviour is included under s 4.9 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990.
  1. On 4th December 2015, you initiated contact with three police officers performing general duties at the top of the Brunswick Street Mall in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane.
  1. You approached Constable Hannah JANSON and stood very close to her which made her feel immediately uncomfortable.
  1. You touched the police radio fitted to Constable JANSON’s load bearing vest at chest level. (Constable Janson is a female police officer)
  1. You offered unwanted operation advice to Constable JANSON in relation to the method of wearing official police equipment.
  1. Whilst waiting at the pedestrian crossing, you looked back at the three police officers, smirked and then extended your middle finger towards them.
  1. You referred to the three police officers whilst indicating to each one by pointing to them individually and then saying words to the effect “no cause he’s a cunt, she’s a cunt and he’s a cunt.”
  1. A strong smell of liquor was detected on your breath at the time of the incident.
  1. You were continually rude, argumentative and belittling during the interaction with the three police officers.
  1. You have failed in your commitment to the highest ethical standards under the Queensland Public Service Code of Conduct. In particular, it has not been of the highest ethical standards. You have also failed in your commitment to demonstrating respect for all persons, whether fellow employees, clients or members of the public.
  1. You have failed to maintain appropriate standards of personal conduct by virtue of 2012/33 Standard of Practice, Professional Conduct. You have also failed to treat all persons with respect and dignity. You have also inappropriately distracted other members of the Queensland Police Service from carrying out their duties.
  1. You have failed to adhere to the Queensland Police Service member’s values as outlined in the Queensland Police Service Strategic Plan 2015-2019. In particular, you have failed to display courage by not doing the right thing, you have not been fair by not treating people with respect and you have failed to display price by your behaviour as an off-duty Queensland Police Officer.
  1. [7]
    Mr Nesterowich made detailed written submissions in response to the show cause notice.
  2. [8]
    The Acting Assistant Commissioner, applying the Briginshaw[4] standard of proof, and having considered for guidance, several decisions about the maintenance of community confidence and termination,[5] made findings of fact accepting that the alleged events, some of which were not controversial, and others which were controversial, had been established. She then considered his probationary service, positive reports about his conduct as an officer, and other matters raised by him in ‘mitigation’ of his actions. She referred to policies and values of the police service.
  3. [9]
    She found his conduct in conflict with organisational values and policies. She terminated Mr Nesterowich’s employment effective immediately.

What is a reviewable decision?

  1. [10]
    Reviewable decision is defined in the Crime and Corruption Commission Act 2001 (Qld) (CCC Act) in s 219BA as follows:

219BA Meaning of reviewable decision

  1. (1)
    A reviewable decision means—
  1. (a)
    a decision made in relation to an allegation of corruption against a prescribed person, other than a decision made by a court or QCAT;[6] or
  1. (b)
    a finding mentioned in the Police Service Administration Act 1990, section 7.4(2A)(b) or 7A.5(1)(b) that corruption is proved against an officer.
  1. (2)
    In this section—

decision, made in relation to a disciplinary allegation of corruption,[7] if a disciplinary declaration is made, includes the disciplinary declaration.

Note—

A reviewable decision may also involve a failure to make a disciplinary declaration.

disciplinary declaration means a disciplinary declaration made under—

  1. (a)
    the Public Service Act 2008, section 188A; or
  1. (b)
    the Police Service Administration Act 1990, section 7A.2(2).

prescribed person, in relation to a prescribed person mentioned in section 50(4), definition prescribed person, paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b)(ii), means—

  1. (a)
    a prescribed person against whom a disciplinary declaration has been made; or
  1. (b)
    in relation to an appeal started by the commission under section 219G—
  1. (i)
    a prescribed person mentioned in paragraph (a); or
  1. (ii)
    a prescribed person against whom a disciplinary declaration has not been made if a ground of appeal states that a disciplinary declaration should have been made.
  1. [11]
    Corruption is defined in Schedule 2 of the CCC Act to mean:

corruption means corrupt conduct or police misconduct.[8]

  1. [12]
    Police misconduct is defined in Schedule 2 to mean:

police misconduct means conduct, other than corrupt conduct, of a police officer that—

  1. (a)
    is disgraceful, improper or unbecoming a police officer; or
  1. (b)
    shows unfitness to be or continue as a police officer;[9] or
  1. (c)
    does not meet the standard of conduct the community reasonably expects of a police officer.

Other relevant legislative provisions

  1. [13]
    It is useful to set out in full sections 5.12 and 7.4 of PSA Act:

5.12 Appointment on probation

  1. (1)
    This section does not apply in relation to an appointment as an officer made on a contract basis.
  1. (2)
    An appointment as an officer of a person who was not an officer immediately before the appointment is an appointment on probation—
  1. (a)
    for a period not less than 12 months determined by the commissioner; or
  1. (b)
    in the absence of such a determination, for a period of 12 months.[10]
  1. (3)
    Unless the position as an officer is advertised in the Queensland Police Gazette as one to which appointment is to be made without a period of probation, an appointment of an officer to a position on promotion is an appointment on probation—
  1. (a)
    for a period not less than 6 months determined by the commissioner; or
  1. (b)
    in the absence of such a determination—for a period of 6 months.
  1. (4)
    The commissioner may—
  1. (a)
    in respect of an appointee referred to in subsection (2)—
  1. (i)
    at any time during the initial period of probation or during any extension of a period of probation, terminate the employment of the appointee; or
  1. (ii)
    at the end of any period of probation, confirm the appointment, extend or further extend the period of probation or terminate the employment of the appointee;[11] or
  1. (b)
    in respect of an appointee referred to in subsection (3) whose appointment is on probation—
  1. (i)
    at any time during the initial period of probation or during any extension of a period of probation, terminate that appointment; or
  1. (ii)
    at the end of any period of probation, confirm the appointment, extend or further extend the period of probation or terminate that appointment.
  1. (5)
    If an appointment is terminated under subsection (4)(b), the person who was the appointee is to be retained in employment as an officer at a level of salary not less than the level of salary of the person immediately before the appointment that is terminated until—
  1. (a)
    the person is appointed to another position in the service; or
  1. (b)
    the person is otherwise dealt with under this Act.

7.4 Disciplinary action

  1. (1)
    In this section—

officer, in relation to a person liable to disciplinary action, includes a police recruit.

prescribed officer means an officer authorised by the regulations to take disciplinary action in the circumstances of any case in question.

QCAT information notice means a notice complying with the QCAT Act, section 157(2).

  1. (2)
    An officer is liable to disciplinary action in respect of the officer’s conduct, which the prescribed officer considers to be misconduct or a breach of discipline on such grounds as are prescribed by the regulations.

(2A) If the prescribed officer—

  1. (a)
    decides an allegation of misconduct brought against the officer;[12] or
  1. (b)
    when deciding an allegation of breach of discipline brought against the officer, finds that misconduct is proved against the officer;

the commissioner must give a QCAT information notice to the officer and the Crime and Corruption Commission for the decision or finding within 14 days after the making of the decision or finding.

  1. (3)
    Without limiting the range of disciplines that may be imposed by the prescribed officer by way of disciplinary action, such disciplines may consist of the following—
  1. (a)
    dismissal;
  1. (b)
    demotion in rank;
  1. (c)
    reprimand;
  1. (d)
    reduction in an officer’s level of salary;
  1. (e)
    forfeiture or deferment of a salary increment or increase;
  1. (f)
    deduction from an officer’s salary payment of a sum equivalent to a fine of 2 penalty units.
  1. (4)
    Every order made by way of disciplinary action takes effect in law and is to be given effect.
  1. (5)
    To remove any doubt, it is declared that a reference in the QCAT Act, section 157(2) to a decision includes a reference to a finding.
  1. [14]
    In s 1.4 of the PSA Act, misconduct is defined as follows:

misconduct means conduct that—

  1. (a)
    is disgraceful, improper or unbecoming an officer; or
  1. (b)
    shows unfitness to be or continue as an officer;[13] or
  1. (c)
    does not meet the standard of conduct the community reasonably expects of a police officer.

Discussion

The parties submissions

  1. [15]
    In essence, Acting Assistant Commissioner Platz submits that decisions made under s 5.12 to terminate probationary officers are not reviewable decisions, unlike decisions under s 7.4 of the PSA Act in relation to allegations of misconduct.  She submits that the power conferred in s 5.12 in relation to probationary appointments is separate and distinct from other powers in the PSA, including the express power to terminate a probationary officer at any time during the initial period of probation.
  2. [16]
    She argues that this wide discretion to terminate is deliberate, enabling the Commissioner to deal with any suitability issues which may arise in relation to probationers, whether or not it reaches the threshold of misconduct.
  3. [17]
    Mr Nesterowich submits that in the circumstances, he faced ‘an allegation of misconduct’ which resulted in the decision to terminate his service, and that it is therefore a reviewable decision. In particular, he submits that misconduct is defined in the PSA to include conduct that ‘shows unfitness to be or continue as an officer.’ The Acting Assistant Commissioner considered an allegation which amounted to an allegation of misconduct. She specifically found that his conduct demonstrated that he is not a fit and proper person, and not suitable to continue as an officer, although she refrained from use of the word, ‘misconduct.’ Accordingly, he submits that her decision expressly involved determination of an allegation of misconduct and resulted in a ‘disciplinary sanction’ of dismissal.
  4. [18]
    He further submits that the common law right to terminate an employee for improper behaviour has been abrogated by the statutory scheme for police officers. That said, he submits that the ‘probationary power’ still enables the Commissioner to terminate a person on probation ‘on other common law grounds,’ including, poor attendance, incompetence, and failure to maintain fitness standards. 
  5. [19]
    He concedes that there is not an express review right in respect of the exercise of power to terminate an officer during their initial probation under s 5.12. However, he argues that there is an express, specific power to dismiss an officer for misconduct, subject to the review regime in the CCC Act. As a matter of statutory construction, he submits that the principle identified in Saraswati v The Queen,[14] by McHugh J, ‘that a statutory power expressed in a general form, is not to be construed so as to avoid any condition or limitation placed on the exercise of a specific power’ applies here.

Previous QCAT decisions about s 219BA

  1. [20]
    In effect, Mr Nesterowich submits that it doesn’t matter which provision of the PSA the Acting Assistant Commissioner purported to act under, the decision is a reviewable decision, if the decision falls within s 219BA(1)(a), because it is an allegation made in relation to an allegation of corruption.  
  2. [21]
    Issues of construction concerning s 219BA of the CCC Act have previously arisen in Arndt v Crime and Misconduct Commission[15] (Arndt) and Crime and Corruption Commission v Dawes and Anor[16] (Dawes).  In Arndt, a decision was made by an Assistant Commissioner not to take disciplinary action against Mr Arndt in respect of his actions during the arrest of an elderly man in the Queen Street Mall. After the events, the (as it then was) Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC), received a complaint from the person arrested. A CMC investigation concluded that an allegation of unlawful assault was substantiated against Mr Arndt. The CMC forwarded its report to QPS for disciplinary action to be taken. Mr Arndt was also found guilty of assault by a Magistrate on a private prosecution.  
  3. [22]
    Despite the conclusion of Ethical Standards Command that there was misconduct; acceptance by the Assistant Commissioner of the Magistrate’s findings and that the allegation was substantiated, disciplinary action was not brought against Mr Arndt. Managerial action was taken instead. The CMC commenced review proceedings in QCAT. On appeal, Mr Arndt was successful in having the review application struck out. The Appeal Tribunal held that for a decision to be a reviewable decision within the meaning of s 219BA, it must be a decision taken in disciplinary action.
  4. [23]
    In Dawes, a decision had been made by a Superintendent that conduct alleged against Mr Dawes in disciplinary action as a breach of discipline, was a breach of discipline. A sanction of two penalty points was imposed. The conduct concerned failures to comply with the Commissioner’s directions in failing to take adequate action in relation to a missing person report about an 83 year old person; failing to notify search and rescue personnel/the on-call commissioned officer; and failing to deploy a junior officer in compliance with policy. Following the failures, the missing person was subsequently located deceased.
  5. [24]
    The CCC filed an application to review the decision on the basis that the conduct was misconduct, not a breach of discipline and that the sanction imposed of two penalty points did not reflect the seriousness of the conduct. It contended that the decision was in substance a decision made in relation to an allegation of corruption (in somewhat similar circumstances, other decisions have found similar conduct was misconduct[17]). However, as a matter of statutory construction, the Tribunal held, consistently with Arndt, and having regard to the legislative disciplinary scheme encompassing the CCC Act and the PSA Act, that for s 219BA(1)(a), the allegation made in disciplinary action must be an allegation of misconduct, for the decision to be a reviewable decision.  If an allegation of breach of discipline is brought, but a decision is made substantiating it as misconduct, it will be a reviewable decision under s 219BA(1)(b). However, substantiated breaches of discipline are reviewable through a different process provided for in the PSA Act. It was held that the CCC did not have a review right under the CCC Act in those circumstances.
  6. [25]
    Although Arndt and Dawes arose in differing circumstances, in both cases, effectively, ‘a decision in relation to an allegation of’ corruption/misconduct was held to be such a decision only if it concerned an allegation made in the course of disciplinary action under s 7.4.

PSA Act Part 5

  1. [26]
    Section 5.12 is contained in Part 5 of the PSA Act, which is entitled Appointment of personnel. Part 5 provides for appointments of executive officers by Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the commissioner.[18] It provides for the commissioner to appoint an acting executive officer/s, commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers, constables and police recruits, (as well as, acting commissioned officers),[19] and special constables for efficent and proper discharge of responsibilities.[20]
  2. [27]
    It sets out terms and conditions of employment of executive officers,[21] and all commissioned[22] and noncommissioned officers and constables.[23] It provides for conditions of employment of police recruits,[24] and in s 5.12 for appointments on probation. In relation to appointments on probation, it provides specifically that the commissioner may at any time during the initial period of probation, terminate the employment of the appointee.[25]
  3. [28]
    Part 5 also provides for transfers and secondments and the rights of police officers to object to transfer,[26] and other matters pertaining to calculations of benefits[27] and the like.

PSA Part 7

  1. [29]
    Section 7.4 is contained in Part 7, entitled Internal command and discipline. It sets out responsibilities for command;[28] duties of officers to report misconduct and breaches of discipline;[29] establishes an offence of victimisation;[30] and provides for disciplinary action against officers.[31] Part 7A then provides for disciplinary declarations against former police officers.

Conclusions

  1. [30]
    In Part 5, the PSA provides the commissioner with powers to appoint personnel as required, including officers who are new to the police service, who by operation of s 5.12(2), are on probation for not less than 12 months in every case. It deals with conditions of employment. Section 5.12(4) also provides the commissioner with a wide, discretionary power to terminate the employment of a probationary officer at any time during the initial probation period.
  2. [31]
    Part 7 deals with responsibility for command, and for the related concept of taking disciplinary action. An officer is liable to disciplinary action for conduct which, broadly speaking, an authorised (more senior) officer brings against the officer for misconduct or a breach of discipline under s 7.4.
  3. [32]
    The CCC Act provides that a decision is a reviewable decision if it is ‘a decision made in relation to an allegation of corruption’ (s 219BA(1)(a)). It is made clear by reading s 219BA in its entirety, in particular noting s 219BA(2), that a decision, to fall within the definition, must be a disciplinary decision. This is consistent with the decisions in Arndt and Dawes.
  4. [33]
    It would be, at least, surprising, if, as Mr Nesterowich submits, s 5.12(4) entitled the commissioner to terminate employment of a first-time probationary officer for poor attendance at work or incompetence, but not because he or she displayed attitudes or conducted himself or herself in a manner inconsistent with the role of a police officer. I do not accept that the principle referred to in Saraswati operates here as submitted by Mr Nesterowich.
  5. [34]
    On a plain reading, the broad power of the commissioner to terminate a first-term probationary officer is separate and distinct from the power to discipline officers. It is contained in Part 5, which is essentially about appointment of personnel and some specific terms of employment: first-time officers must be appointed on probation. It is a power specifically given in respect of first-time probationary officers, and related by its inclusion in Part 5, with the power of the commissioner to appoint personnel to discharge the functions of the police service.
  6. [35]
    The power is broadly expressed. The commissioner is entitled to conclude for any reason/s that arise during that initial probation period that the inexperienced officer is not suitable to continue in the role. Whether or not that conclusion is reached because of incompetence, failure to attend work when rostered; failure to discharge duties appropriately; or engaging in behaviour which is inconsistent or incompatible with the ethos and values of the service and established policies.
  7. [36]
    The power is entirely consistent with the commissioner’s responsibility for the ‘efficient and proper administration, management and functioning of the police service…’[32] It is well-recognised that public confidence in the integrity of police officers is essential for the police service to operate effectively.[33] Although internal police discipline is the primary means of maintaining confidence, recruitment and engagement of suitable persons as officers must also play a not insignificant part. Suitability and fitness for the role of police officer is relevant to selection and appointment, as well as, ongoing service.
  8. [37]
    Selection processes for recruiting officers cannot be infallible. It is important that inexperienced officers, employed as police constables on probation, show an aptitude for the police service and the ability to conduct their work and themselves appropriately. Sometimes persons commenced on probation will not demonstrate the necessary suitability for ongoing police service. The commissioner (or proper delegate) is entitled by s 5.12(4)(a) to identify first-time probation officers who do not, for any reason, and to terminate their employment.
  9. [38]
    Although proceedings could conceivably be brought for disciplinary action under s 7.4 during an officer’s initial probation period, they have not been brought under that provision in Mr Nesterowich’s case. There was no requirement to do so. He was a first-time probationary officer. The Acting Assistant Commissioner was, as delegate of the commissioner, entitled to proceed under s 5.12. Mr Nesterowich did not face disciplinary charges under s 7.4. His employment was terminated under s 5.12(4)(a) by the Commissioner’s duly authorised delegate. Therefore, a disciplinary allegation of misconduct was not brought against Mr Nesterowich. Further, a decision was not made by the Acting Assistant Commissioner in relation to a disciplinary allegation of misconduct. Instead, the decision made by Acting Assistant Commissioner Platz was a decision to terminate Mr Nesterowich’s employment as a probationary officer.
  10. [39]
    The decision does not fall within the definition of reviewable decision in the CCC Act.

Orders

  1. [40]
    As the decision is not a reviewable decision, the application for review is misconceived. It must be struck out. I make orders pursuant to s 47 of the QCAT Act striking it out.

Footnotes

[1] CCC Act, s 219BA(1)(a).

[2] CCC Act, Schedule 2, definition of ‘corruption’.

[3] QCAT Act, s 47.

[4] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[5] Acting Assistant Commissioner Platz’ reasons for termination decision, paras [49] – [50].

[6] Emphasis added.

[7] Emphasis added.

[8] Emphasis added.

[9] Emphasis added.

[10] Emphasis added.

[11] Emphasis added.

[12] Emphasis added.

[13] Emphasis added.

[14] (1991) 172 CLR 1, 24.

[15] [2013] QCATA 340.

[16] [2017] QCAT 66.

[17] Crime and Corruption Commission v Dawes and Anor [2017] QCAT 66, see discussion at [45] and footnote 28.

[18] PSA Act, s 5.3.

[19] PSA Act, s 5.8.

[20] PSA Act, s 5.5, 5.6, 5.16.

[21] PSA Act, s 5.4.

[22] PSA Act, s 5.7.

[23] PSA Act, s 5.8.

[24] PSA Act, s 5.11.

[25] PSA Act, s 5.12(4).

[26] PSA Act, s 5.13, s 5.13A, s 5.13C.

[27] PSA Act s 5.14.

[28] PSA Act s 7.1.

[29] PSA Act s 7.2.

[30] PSA Act s 7.3.

[31] PSA Act s 7.4.

[32] PSA Act, s 4.8.

[33] Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397, 412.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Kurt Alexander Nesterowich v Acting Assistant Commissioner Deborah Platz

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Nesterowich v Acting Assistant Commissioner Platz

  • MNC:

    [2017] QCAT 139

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Howard

  • Date:

    03 May 2017

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Arndt v Crime and Misconduct Commission & Anor [2013] QCATA 340
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCATA 340
Cite 2 - [2013] QCATA 340
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Crime and Corruption Commission v Kelly [2017] QCAT 66
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCAT 66
Cite 2 - [2017] QCAT 66
Cite 3 - [2017] QCAT 66
Police Service Board v Morris & Martin (1985) 156 CLR 397
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1985) 156 CLR 397
Cite 2 - (1985) 156 CLR 397
Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 C.L.R 1
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) 172 C.L.R 1
Cite 2 - (1991) 172 C.L.R 1

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Brar v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2023] QIRC 1421 citation
Nesterowich v Platz [2018] QCATA 1196 citations
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.