Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2016
  4. Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 3) - [2016] QIRC 58

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

Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 3)[2016] QIRC 58

Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 3)[2016] QIRC 58

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 3) [2016] QIRC 058

PARTIES:

Weston, Jeremy Simon

(Applicant)

and

Parer, Siobhan Maree

(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General)

(Respondent)

CASE NOS:

B/2015/44

B/2015/45

B/2015/51

PROCEEDING:

B/2015/52

Application for Suppression Order

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2016

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Fisher

ORDERS:

  1. Within 14 days the Respondent undertakes to consider the material filed and redact any material but only to the extent necessary:
  1. (a)
    subject to legal professional privilege or protected by s 33 of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002;
  1. (b)
    identifies or tends to identify a claimant against the State of Queensland; or
  1. (c)
    might otherwise be protected under s 679(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999.
  1. The redacted versions of evidence will be filed in the Registry and provided to the Applicants and be made available for search.
  1. If the Applicants have any objection to the redactions made the parties will confer about the objections.
  1. Any agreed variation to the redactions will be advised to the Registry and made available for search.
  1. Any variations not agreed will be listed for mention or hearing.
  1. Until further order of the Commission the material filed, except for the redacted material filed in accordance with this Order, not be published or searched.
  1. Pursuant to s 329(f) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999, the Decision of the Commission released on 17 May 2016, has no effect for a period of 14 days.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW - APPLICATION BY RESPONDENT FOR SUPPRESSION ORDER - whether affidavits contained information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected - where necessary to protect documents already filed - where respondent has 14 days to consider and redact only to extent necessary

CASES:

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s 33

Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 329, s 679

Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2) [2016] QIRC 056

Mayne Logistics Armaguard v Cochrane (2002) 172 QGIG 1139

APPEARANCES:

Mr S. Reidy, Counsel instructed by Susan Moriarty & Associates for the Applicants.

Dr M. Spry, Counsel instructed by Minter Ellison Lawyers for the Respondent.

Mr R. Lyndon, Lyndon Duhs Law for Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd.

Decision

  1. [1]
    This decision provides the context to the Orders issued by the Commission on 19 May 2016 and which are set out hereunder.
  1. [2]
    The Commission released a decision on 17 May 2016 refusing an application for a suppression order sought by the Respondent.[1]  It came to the Commission's knowledge on 18 May 2016 that affidavits filed by the Applicants in connection with their applications identified certain claimants.  An affidavit by Fiona Black of Crown Law also identified claimants.  Further, it was possible that those affidavits contained information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002.
  1. [3]
    Those affidavits were overlooked in writing the decision, in part because the Respondent did not explicitly identify that particular affidavits already filed included such privileged or protected information when the application for the suppression order was being sought.  In my decision, I accepted that some information contained in affidavits would be so protected.
  1. [4]
    The Commission decided that the best way to deal with the privileged information contained in the already filed affidavits was to relist the matters.  Such a course appeared to be open pursuant to s 329(e) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999.  The matter was relisted on 19 May 2016.
  1. [5]
    The Commission advised the parties that it maintains its decision that a blanket suppression order would not be issued.  Those appearing were invited to make submissions about whether any information provided to date should be suppressed pursuant to s 679 of the IR Act, having regard to the principles set out in the decision of Hall P in Mayne Logistics.[2]
  1. [6]
    The Respondent proposed the Commission stay its decision of 17 May 2016 and issue orders dealing with the documents already filed.  The Applicants agreed that identifiable, privileged information should be excised.  Ultimately, the parties agreed on the terms of a draft order to protect documents already filed and advised they would discuss a separate process in relation to documents to be filed in accordance with the Further Directions Order issued on 12 May 2016.
  1. [7]
    The parties did not object to Mr Lyndon, appearing on behalf of Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, making a submission.  Mr Lyndon supported a practical solution but submitted that the terms of the proposed order impacted on the ability of his clients to publish material.  For this reason he proposed amendments to the draft order which would allow his clients access to the redacted information and the opportunity to be consulted as well as to challenge any of the redactions in the Commission.
  1. [8]
    The Commission approved the terms of the Order proposed by the Respondent and agreed to by the Applicants with one amendment proposed by Mr Lyndon, which the parties did not object to.  The Order is set out below and relates only to the documents already filed in the Industrial Registry.
  1. [9]
    The Respondent had agreed to advise the Applicants in writing of the reasons for the redactions.  The Commission required the Respondent to forward a copy of the letter to the Registry.
  1. [10]
    As a consequence of the further hearing, and pursuant to s 329(f) of the IR Act, the Decision of the Commission released on 17 May 2016[3] has no effect for a period of 14 days.
  1. [11]
    The terms of the Orders issued by the Commission are set out below and are operative on and from 19 May 2016.

Orders

  1. Within 14 days the Respondent undertakes to consider the material filed and redact any material but only to the extent necessary:
  1. (a)
    subject to legal professional privilege or protected by s 33 of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002;
  1. (b)
    identifies or tends to identify a claimant against the State of Queensland; or
  1. (c)
    might otherwise be protected under s 679(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999.
  1. The redacted versions of evidence will be filed in the Registry and provided to the Applicants and be made available for search.
  1. If the Applicants have any objection to the redactions made the parties will confer about the objections.
  1. Any agreed variation to the redactions will be advised to the Registry and made available for search.
  1. Any variations not agreed will be listed for mention or hearing.
  1. Until further order of the Commission the material filed, except for the redacted material filed in accordance with this Order, not be published or searched.
  1. Pursuant to s 329(f) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999, the Decision of the Commission released on 17 May 2016, has no effect for a period of 14 days.

Footnotes

[1] Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2) [2016] QIRC 056.

[2] Mayne Logistics Armaguard v Cochrane (2002) 172 QGIG 1139.

[3] Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2) [2016] QIRC 056.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 3)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 3)

  • MNC:

    [2016] QIRC 58

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Fisher IC

  • Date:

    20 May 2016

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
Mayne Logistics Armaguard v Cochrane (2002) 172 QGIG 1139
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 172 QGIG 1139
Cite 2 - (2002) 172 QGIG 1139
Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2) [2016] QIRC 56
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QIRC 56
Cite 2 - [2016] QIRC 56
Cite 3 - [2016] QIRC 56

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Parer v Queensland (No 4) [2016] QIRC 1232 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.