Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2016
  4. Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2) - [2016] QIRC 82

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

Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2)[2016] QIRC 82

Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2)[2016] QIRC 82

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: 

Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2) [2016] QIRC 082

PARTIES: 

Parer, Siobhan Maree

(Applicant)

v

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

(Respondent)

CASE NOS:

B/2015/45

 

PROCEEDING:

Application to Admit Documents

 

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2016

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Fisher

ORDERS:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION TO ADMIT DOCUMENTS – where respondent disputes their admission – where s 320 not appropriate – where other options available

CASES:

Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 320, s 324

APPEARANCES:

Mr P.J. Callaghan, SC and with him Mr L.S. Reidy, Counsel instructed by Susan Moriarty & Associates for the Applicant.

Mr J.E. Murdoch, QC and with him Mr C.J. Murdoch, Counsel instructed by Minter Ellison Lawyers for the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    The short point is whether the Commission should allow documents to be admitted using the powers available under s 320 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 despite the Respondent disputing their admission.
  1. [2]
    In addition to the matters raised by the Respondent, I have three particular concerns about the approach advocated by the Applicant:
  1. (i)
    it requires the Commission to admit documents which the Respondent disputes and which the Applicant knows to be disputed;
  2. (ii)
    rather than following the usual approach in such circumstances of proving them, the Applicant seeks that the Commission invoke its wide powers found at s 320 of the Act to admit them; and
  3. (iii)
    although the Commission has power to waive the Rules, invoking s 320 has the effect of avoiding the purpose of r 49 which is to facilitate the proof of documents at trial.
  1. [3]
    It is important to note that at all times in this litigation the parties have been legally represented by experienced Counsel and lawyers.  The litigation has adopted formal legal processes including various interlocutory applications, producing evidence on affidavit, an argument about legal professional privilege as well as the use of Notices to Admit Facts and Documents.  Given the formal legal processes that have been adopted to date I do not consider it appropriate for the Commission to depart from this approach by relying on wide powers under s 320 of the Act.  To do so would be to default to a less formal and rather unstructured approach on this contentious matter.
  1. [4]
    In addition, the use of this power to admit documents that have been disputed is inappropriate given the nature of the proceedings.  Moreover, there are other options that are available to the Applicant to seek to have the documents put before the Commission.
  1. [5]
    In this regard, I have considered the Applicant's arguments about time and cost were the documents not to be admitted, as well as the submission that the weight that might be given to the documents is indeterminate until the conclusion of cross-examination.  In my view the Applicant should make a decision as to whether or not she seeks that the documents be properly put before the Commission.  If the Applicant seeks that the documents be before the Commission then they need to be authenticated.  She has two choices as to how that occurs - to issue Attendance Notices or to make an application under s 324 of the Act.  Both of these options have been identified by the parties in their respective submissions as being available to the Applicant.
  1. [6]
    The Commission is conscious of the tight timeframe for concluding these proceedings and the parties' desire, as well as my own, to adhere to that.  I also acknowledge the natter has come before the Commission at a late stage but accept the parties have been working diligently towards the resolution of this and other contentious matters.  However, the Commission would be prepared to hear an application by the Applicant from the bar table pursuant s 324 of the Act at an early time, although any decision would of course only be made after hearing from both parties.
  1. [7]
    In the circumstances I decline to exercise my powers under s 320 of the Act to admit the disputed documents.
  1. [8]
    I order accordingly.
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 2)

  • MNC:

    [2016] QIRC 82

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Fisher IC

  • Date:

    05 Aug 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

No judgments cited by this judgment.

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Parer v Queensland (No 4) [2016] QIRC 1233 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.