Gill v Queensland
[2018] QCAT 198
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Gill v Queensland[2018] QCAT 198
- Add to List
Gill v Queensland[2018] QCAT 198
Gill v Queensland[2018] QCAT 198
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Gill v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QCAT 198 |
PARTIES: | TINA GILL ON BEHALF OF BENJAMIN GILL (applicant) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (first respondent) DEAN THOMAS (second respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | ADL015-18 |
MATTER TYPE: | Anti-discrimination matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 28 June 2018 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Fitzpatrick |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where conciliation agreement between the applicant and the first respondent – where agreement contains bar to further proceedings clause – whether clause operates as a bar to these proceedings |
REPRESENTATION: |
|
Applicant: | CA Massey, instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers |
Respondents: | J Merrell, instructed by the Crown Solicitor |
APPEARANCES: |
|
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). | |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]The question for determination is whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine a complaint lodged by the applicant in the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland (ADCQ), on 26 October 2017 and subsequently referred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Second Complaint).
- [2]The question arises because the applicant and the first respondent entered into a conciliation agreement on 15 July 2016 following a complaint made to the ADCQ on 11 March, 2016 (The First Complaint). The complaints appear to be similar. The conciliation agreement provides for a release and discharge and a bar to further proceedings.
- [3]I find that this Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear and determine the Second Complaint for the following reasons.
- [4]I accept the submissions of the applicant that this application relates to further and new complaints to those the subject of the conciliation agreement, dated 15 July 2016.
- [5]The conciliation agreement relates to the First Complaint. The bar to further proceedings at clause 12 of the conciliation agreement is directed to the First Complaint and does not go so far as to catch future complaints which do not arise out of or are not in connection with “the allegations in and the facts, matters, and/or circumstances of the complaint, against the respondent (including the respondent’s present and former employees, officers, servants and/or agents)…”
- [6]I accept that the bar to future proceedings is harnessed to the First Complaint. I accept that the Second Complaint the subject of these proceedings relates to a wholly separate cause of action which arose after the First Complaint was settled. I find that a complaint which is similar to the First Complaint does not arise from and is not in connection with the First Complaint.
- [7]I find that the words of clause 12 of the conciliation agreement, properly construed reflect an intention of the parties not to bar future proceedings such as the Second Complaint. Such a result could have been achieved by different wording in clause 12 harnessing the bar to proceedings to Benjamin Gill’s impairment rather than the facts of the First Complaint.
- [8]The matter should now proceed in accordance with further Directions of the Tribunal.