Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2021
  4. Sommerfeld v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2021] QIRC 322

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

Sommerfeld v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2021] QIRC 322

Sommerfeld v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2021] QIRC 322

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Sommerfeld v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 322

PARTIES:

Sommerfeld, Narelle Jean

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2021/284

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Disciplinary Decision

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2021

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

That the appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – where appellant failed to comply with directions orders – consideration of r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 – where appeal is dismissed

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562A

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 6, r 45

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld)

CASES:

Cady v Capital SMART Repairs Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QIRC 144

Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1998] QCA 114

House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499

Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1990] 98 ALR 200

Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2001] QCA 176

Seymour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 061

Treanor v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 146

Workers' Compensation Regulator v Bero [2019] QIRC 36

Workers' Compensation Regulator v Varga [2019] QIRC 028

Reasons for Decision

The Appeal

  1. [1]
    Ms Narelle Sommerfeld (the Appellant) is employed as a Clinical Nurse, Grade 6 by Metro South Hospital and Health Service within Queensland Health, State of Queensland (MSHHS; the Respondent).
  1. [2]
    An allegation regarding Ms Sommerfeld's performance was put to her in a show cause notice by Dr Bill Kingswell[1] on 1 April 2021 (the Allegation; the Show Cause Notice).[2] The Allegation is reproduced below:

Allegation one

You have failed to fulfil the responsibilities of your role independently and at a level commensurate to a clinical nurse and as a result, you have failed to meet the inherent requirements of your role.[3]

  1. [3]
    On 23 April 2021, Ms Sommerfeld provided a written response to the Show Cause Notice.[4]
  1. [4]
    In written correspondence issued on 10 May 2021, Mr Kieran Kinsella advised Ms Sommerfeld that the Allegation "is substantiated on the balance of probabilities" (the Disciplinary Finding Decision).[5] Mr Kinsella considered there were grounds for Ms Sommerfeld to be disciplined under s 187(1)(a) of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) (PS Act). In particular, that Ms Sommerfeld was found to have "engaged in repeated unsatisfactory performance or serious under performance of the employee's duties, including, for example, by performing duties carelessly, incompetently or inefficiently".
  1. [5]
    The Disciplinary Finding Decision also proposed a disciplinary penalty in the following terms:

Proposed disciplinary action

In relation to the imposition of a disciplinary action, I am currently giving serious consideration to the disciplinary action of:

  • reduction in classification level and consequential change of duties - from a Clinical Nurse, Grade 6 to a Registered Nurse, Grade 5.[6]
  1. [6]
    On 17 May 2021, Ms Sommerfeld responded to the proposed disciplinary action.[7]
  1. [7]
    In written correspondence issued on 20 July 2021 (the Disciplinary Action Decision), Dr Kingswell advised that the disciplinary action that would apply to Ms Sommerfeld is:

Reduction in classification level and consequential change of duties to the position of Registered Nurse (NRG5), Scrub Scout, Perioperative Services, QEII.[8] 

Further, that:

If no appeal is received, the above disciplinary action will be implemented after the 21-dy period or if you advise earlier you do not intend to appeal, the disciplinary action will be implemented at the earlier time. A letter will be sent to you at that time confirming the implementation of the disciplinary action.

  1. [8]
    On 10 August 2021, Ms Sommerfeld filed an Appeal Notice against the Disciplinary Finding Decision and the Disciplinary Action Decision.
  1. [9]
    The MSHHS confirmed that Ms Sommerfeld's pay level will be maintained until this appeal can be heard and decided.[9] 
  1. [10]
    Section 564(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (IR Act) requires that an appeal be lodged within 21 days after the day the decision appealed against is given.
  1. [11]
    The Disciplinary Action Decision was given to Ms Sommerfeld on 20 July 2021. The Appeal Notice was filed with the Industrial Registry on 10 August 2021.  Therefore, I am satisfied that the Appeal Notice, as it pertains to the Disciplinary Action Decision, was filed by Ms Sommerfeld within the required timeframe.
  1. [12]
    However, the Disciplinary Finding Decision was given to Ms Sommerfeld on 10 May 2021. In accordance with s 564(3) of the IR Act, an appeal of the Disciplinary Finding Decision should have been filed on or by 31 May 2021. Therefore, the Appeal Notice, as it pertains to the Disciplinary Finding Decision, was filed 72 days out of time.

The Directions

  1. [13]
    On 13 August 2021, I issued a Directions Order to progress the appeal (the 13 August 2021 Directions Order) in which I ordered the following:
  1. That the Appellant file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions (of no more than five pages in length and any relevant attachments) in support of the Appeal by 4:00pm on 20 August 2021.

Note: The written submissions should address whether this Appeal should be heard out of time.

  1. That the Respondent file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Appellant, written submissions in response to the Appellant's submissions (of no more than five pages in length and any relevant attachments) by 4:00pm on 27 August 2021.
  1. That, if needed, the Appellant file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions (of no more than three pages in length and any relevant attachments) in reply to the submissions of the Respondent, by 4:00pm on 3 September 2021.
  1. Unless any party files an application by 4:00pm on 8 September 2021 for leave to make oral submissions or further written submissions, the matter will be dealt with on the papers pursuant to s 451(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016.
  1. [14]
    On 13 August 2021, Ms Sommerfeld sent an email to the Industrial Registry that stated, "I do have another document - is it too late to send through to you now?". In response, the Industrial Registry advised Ms Sommerfeld that "…you may still provide the document for Commissioner McLennan’s consideration. As outlined in the attached Directions Order, you may file your submissions and any relevant attachments by 4:00pm on 20 August 2021."
  1. [15]
    Pursuant to the 13 August 2021 Directions Order, Ms Sommerfeld's submissions in support of her Appeal Notice, including submissions addressing whether the appeal should be heard out of time, were due by 20 August 2021. No submissions were filed with the Industrial Registry by that date, no explanation for the non-compliance was provided and no extension was sought.
  1. [16]
    On 23 August 2021, the Department emailed the Industrial Registry and advised the following:

In accordance with the appeal notice filed by Ms Sommerfeld and email correspondence from Ms Sommerfeld of 13 August 2021, I understand there may have been further document/s outstanding that Ms Sommerfeld wished to provide.  The MSH has not been copied into any submissions or further correspondence. As such, unless any further correspondence is forwarded to the MSH, we will respond only to the content in the initial appeal notice.[10]

The Department copied Ms Sommerfeld into that correspondence.

  1. [17]
    On 24 August 2021, the Industrial Registry responded by advising, "The Industrial Registry confirms that the Appellant has not filed anything other than the Appeal Notice on 10 August 2021." The Industrial Registry copied Ms Sommerfeld into that correspondence.
  1. [18]
    In accordance with the 13 August 2021 Directions Order, the Department filed and served its written submissions on 27 August 2021.
  1. [19]
    Pursuant to the 13 August 2021 Directions Order, Ms Sommerfeld's submissions in reply to the Department's submissions, if any, were due by 3 September 2021. No submissions were filed with the Industrial Registry by that date and no extension was sought.
  1. [20]
    In email correspondence dated 3 September 2021, the Industrial Registry advised the parties of the following:

A Directions Order was issued on 13 August 2021 directing Ms Sommerfeld to file submissions in support of her Appeal Notice. That direction has not been complied with. Further, no communication was received from Ms Sommerfeld requesting an extension of time.

In accordance with the Directions Order, the Respondent filed their submissions within the required timeframe. I note that the date for Ms Sommerfeld’s reply submissions to be filed has now passed. The two points of non-compliance with Directions combined with a lack of communication with the Industrial Registry seeking an extension of time would enliven the question as to why this appeal should not be dismissed under r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld).

Please find attached a Directions Order issued today at the hand of Industrial Commissioner McLennan. If Ms Sommerfeld does not intend to proceed with the Appeal, a Form 27 Request to discontinue proceeding should be filed and can be accessed here: Forms | Queensland Industrial Relations (qirc.qld.gov.au).

  1. [21]
    In the Directions Order issued with the 3 September 2021 correspondence (the 3 September 2021 Directions Order) I ordered as follows:

1. That the Appellant file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions (of no more than three pages in length and any relevant attachments) as to why the Appeal should not be dismissed under r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) by 4:00pm on 8 September 2021.

2. That the Respondent file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Appellant, written submissions in response to the Appellant's submissions (of no more than three pages in length and any relevant attachments) by 4:00pm on 13 September 2021.

3. That, if needed, the Appellant file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions (of no more than one page in length and any relevant attachments) in reply to the submissions of the Respondent, by 4:00pm on 15 September 2021.

4. Unless any party files an application by 4:00pm on 17 September 2021 for leave to make oral submissions or further written submissions, the matter will be dealt with on the papers pursuant to s 451(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016.

  1. [22]
    Pursuant to the 3 September 2021 Directions Order, Ms Sommerfeld's submissions as to why her appeal should not be dismissed under r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) (the Rules) were due by 8 September 2021. No submissions were filed with the Industrial Registry by that date and no extension was sought.
  1. [23]
    In accordance with the 3 September 2021 Directions Order, the Department filed and served its written submissions on 9 September 2021.
  1. [24]
    On 13 September 2021, Ms Sommerfeld emailed the Industrial Registry with the following:

I would like to apologise for not responding to your previous emails. I do I tend (sic) continuing with my appeal through the QIRC.

I will have all my documentation to you by tomorrow - Tuesday 14 September 2021.

Again apologies for the lateness of my response.

  1. [25]
    Despite Ms Sommerfeld's email dated 13 September 2021, no documentation was forthcoming on 14 September 2021.
  1. [26]
    On 15 September 2021, Ms Sommerfeld sent an email to the Industrial Registry with the following:

Please find attached the second response letter that I had submitted to Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital Executive.

I believe that I can not offer any more in a further submission to the information that I have posted in the two responses that I have previously submitted.

I have been continuing in my current role for the duration of the disciplinary action and believe that I have been able to demonstrate my ability to undertake the role ensuring that the patients receive appropriate and timely care.

Many thanks for your consideration of the information that I have provided to you.

I note that Ms Sommerfeld did not copy in the Department to that email. Further, the attachment did not address why the appeal should be heard out of time and why the matter should not be dismissed as ordered pursuant to the 13 August 2021 and 3 September 2021 Directions Orders.

  1. [27]
    Also on 15 September 2021, the MSHHS sent an email to the Industrial Registry stating the following:

The Respondent, the Metro South Hospital and Health Service, has not had any submissions served on it by the Applicant, Ms Narelle Sommerfeld, which were due for submission by 4:00pm 13 September 2021.

If no submissions have been filed, we are content to rely on our submissions of 9 September 2021, except to note that Ms Sommerfeld will have again not complied with a Directions Order and not taken steps to progress the matter. If Ms Sommerfeld has filed submissions but not served them on the Respondent, we respectfully request a further period to consider any submissions of Ms Sommerfeld.

The MSHHS copied Ms Sommerfeld into that email.

  1. [28]
    Pursuant to the 3 September 2021 Directions Order, Ms Sommerfeld's submissions in reply to the Department's submissions, if any, were due by 15 September 2021. No submissions as to why the appeal should not be dismissed were filed with the Industrial Registry by that date and no extension was sought.
  1. [29]
    Pursuant to the 3 September 2021 Directions Order, any request for leave to make oral submissions or further submissions was due by 17 September 2021. No request was made by either party.
  1. [30]
    Ms Sommerfeld did not comply with the 13 August 2021 Directions Order nor the 3 September 2021 Directions Order. Even now, the substantive requirements of both orders remain unfulfilled. At no stage has Ms Sommerfeld explained the delay or failure to comply.
  1. [31]
    For the reasons that follow, I have determined that Ms Sommerfeld's continued and unexplained non-compliance with the Directions Orders warrants the dismissal of her appeal.

Submissions

  1. [32]
    The MSHHS filed submissions on 9 September 2021 in accordance with the 3 September 2021 Directions Order. I have carefully considered the MSHHS' submissions and have determined not to approach the writing of this decision by summarising the entirety of those submission but will instead refer to the key arguments in my consideration.

Rule 45

  1. [33]
    In the 3 September 2021 Directions Order, the parties were directed to make submissions with respect to r 45 of the Tribunal Rules. Rule 45 of the Tribunal Rules provides as follows (emphasis added):
  1. Failure to attend or to comply with directions order
  1. (1)
    This rule applies if -
  1. (a)
    a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar stating a time, date and place for a hearing or conference for the proceeding; and
  2. (b)
    the party fails to attend the conference.
  1. (2)
    This rule also applies if -
  1. (a)
    a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar; and
  2. (b)
    the party fails to comply with the order.
  1. (3)
    The court, commission or registrar may -
  1. (a)
    dismiss the proceeding; or
  2. (b)
    make a further directions order; or
  3. (c)
    make another order dealing with the proceeding that the court, commission or registrar consider appropriate, including, for example, a final order; or
  4. (d)
    make orders under paragraphs (b) and (c).
  1. [34]
    I note that the non-compliance issue could also be considered under s 562A(3)(b)(iii) of the IR Act which provides that "The commission may decide it will not hear a public service appeal against a decision if - the commission reasonably believes, after asking the appellant to establish by oral or written submissions that the appellant has an arguable case for the appeal, that the appeal - should not be heard for another compelling reason." As r 45 of the Tribunal Rules specifically pertains to the issue of failing to comply with a directions order and is a clear rule for both parties to respond to, I will proceed on that basis.
  1. [35]
    The power under r 45(3)(a) of the Tribunal Rules involves an exercise of discretion. Foremost, discretionary powers must be "exercised judicially, according to rules of reason and justice, and not arbitrarily or capriciously or according to private opinion."[11] In exercising that discretion, I am informed by several factors, which are set out below. Ultimately, however, I must consider the particular circumstances of this case.[12]
  1. [36]
    In Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd,[13] their Honours Wilcox and Gummow JJ considered a provision under the Federal Court Rules which is materially similar to r 45 of the Tribunal Rules. In that case, their Honours identified two broad types of failure to comply with directions which would warrant the dismissal of a matter (emphasis added):

As it is impossible to foresee all of the circumstances under which the rule might be sought to be used, it is undesirable to make any exhaustive statement of the circumstances under which the power granted by the rule will appropriately be exercised. We will not attempt to do so. But two situations are obvious candidates for the exercise of the power: cases in which the history of non-compliance by an applicant is such as to indicate an inability or unwillingness to co-operate with the Court and the other party or parties in having the matter ready for trial within an acceptable period and cases - whatever the applicant's state of mind or resources - in which the non-compliance is continuing and occasioning unnecessary delay, expense or other prejudice to the respondent. Although the history of the matter will always be relevant, it is more likely to be decisive in the first of these two situations. Even though the most recent non-compliance may be minor, the cumulative effect of an applicant's defaults may be such as to satisfy the Judge that the applicant is either subjectively unwilling to co-operate or, for some reason, is unable to do so. Such a conclusion would not readily be reached; but, where it was, fairness to the respondent would normally require the summary dismissal of the proceeding.

In the second of the two situations we postulate, a significant continuing default, it does not really matter whether there have been earlier omissions to comply with the Court's directions. Ex hypothesi the default is continuing and is imposing an unacceptable burden on the respondent.[14]

  1. [37]
    Such reasoning was followed by his Honour O'Connor VP in this jurisdiction in Workers' Compensation Regulator v Varga,[15] and Seymour v Workers' Compensation Regulator,[16] as well as by his Honour Merrell DP in Cady v Capital SMART Repairs Australia Pty Ltd & Anor.[17]
  1. [38]
    Ms Sommerfeld's default is certainly continuing, given her ongoing failure to comply with the substantive requirements outlined in the Directions Orders. Ms Sommerfeld has even failed to provide an informal explanation of delay and instead has blatantly disregarded the Directions Orders.
  1. [39]
    On several occasions, Ms Sommerfeld was issued with correspondence from the Industrial Registry and copied into correspondence from the MSHHS that ought to have served as a reminder of her obligations under the Directions Orders and a prompt to action the requirements. Although Ms Sommerfeld filed a supporting document on 15 September 2021, she did not copy in nor serve that document on the MSHHS which again ignores a component of the Directions Orders.
  1. [40]
    Ms Sommerfeld's default imposes an unacceptable burden on the Respondent, as it is unable to meaningfully respond to the appeal without understanding Ms Sommerfeld's case. Further, the Respondent rightfully noted that the MSHHS agreed to maintain Ms Sommerfeld's pay level and classification level, thereby not imposing the disciplinary decision subject of the appeal until the matter had been decided. By failing to respond to the Directions Orders, Ms Sommerfeld has and continues to gain a significant advantage by extending the time between now and the determination of her appeal. Whilst the appeal is on foot, the MSHHS continues to incur the expense of maintaining Ms Sommerfeld at a pay level higher than that which had been decided by the decision maker. That is a compelling reason to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible.
  1. [41]
    Ms Sommerfeld's continuous disregard for timelines has evinced in my mind that this behaviour will be repeated, and this matter will be drawn out substantially to the Respondent's detriment. For that reason, I am not convinced that giving further chances to explain and adhere to the Directions Orders is appropriate as Ms Sommerfeld has already evinced disregard and an intention to proceed with the matter on her own terms. This approach leaves the Respondent in limbo with an appeal filed against them. 
  1. [42]
    I acknowledge that in correspondence dated 15 September 2021, Ms Sommerfeld indicated that she intends to proceed with her appeal. However, that indication was not accompanied by compliance with either Directions Order, nor an explanation for the delay. Instead, the email suggested that Ms Sommerfeld could "not offer anymore in a further submission to the information" that she had already submitted. Although Ms Sommerfeld may intend to proceed, her non-compliance demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to proceed in accordance with the Tribunal Rules. Proceeding on her own terms is unacceptable.
  1. [43]
    I have no doubt that Ms Sommerfeld understands her obligations under the Directions Orders with respect to time periods, as this was clearly stipulated. Notwithstanding, the clear lack of regard for the substantive directions indicates that Ms Sommerfeld does not want to put enough effort into responding appropriately.
  1. [44]
    I acknowledge that Ms Sommerfeld is a self-represented litigant. In that regard, I would note that a lack of representation is a misfortune, which should be met with necessary procedural assistance, but is not a privilege entitling a self-represented litigant to special consideration at the expense of the party or parties who are represented or more experienced in the jurisdiction.[18]
  1. [45]
    In circumstances where every assistance has been provided to Ms Sommerfeld, including a re-iteration of the timeline and ensuring that she is copied into all correspondence to serve as a reminder of her obligations, non-compliance with the Directions cannot be said to arise from her lack of understanding of the law.
  1. [46]
    Noting that Ms Sommerfeld has failed to comply with two sets of Directions Orders, the cumulative effect of her non-compliance is substantial enough to satisfy me that Ms Sommerfeld is either unwilling to comply or for some reason is unable to do so and as a result, the Respondents' case is prejudiced.
  1. [47]
    In the exercise of my discretion under r 45 of the Tribunal Rules, I am also minded to consider the purpose of the Tribunal Rules, as set out in r 6:
  1. Purpose of rules

The purpose of these rules is to provide for the just and expeditious disposition of the business of the court, the commission, a magistrate and the registrar at a minimum of expense.

  1. [48]
    The terms 'just' and 'expeditious' may sometimes appear to be at odds. Australian Courts and Tribunals often wrestle with the task of maintaining the precarious balance between expeditious resolutions, and the ability of parties to prepare for and present their case. In considering that balance while dealing with an application to dismiss for want of prosecution, his Honour Thomas JA in Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor provided (emphasis added):

There is now a consciousness of the need for some level of efficiency in the use of the courts as a public resource. That, of course, must not displace the need for reasonable access to the courts and the provision of justice according to law in each matter, but it highlights the fact that the former laissez faire attitude by courts towards the leisurely conduct of actions at the will of the parties has ended. At the same time the rules of court are not an end in themselves. They do not exist for the discipline of practitioners or clients, or for the protection of courts from inefficient litigants, but rather as a means of ensuring that issues will be defined in an orderly way and that parties have the opportunity of full preparation of their case before the trial commences. The rules also afford defendants the means of bringing to an end actions in which the other party will not abide by the rules.[19]

  1. [49]
    While his Honour Thomas JA was considering the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), that passage has been adopted in this jurisdiction on a number of occasions,[20] as the underlying question to be determined is consistent with the exercise of discretion under r 45 of the Tribunal Rules.
  1. [50]
    Time limits are imposed to ensure fairness between the parties as well as to ensure the expeditious advancement of the matter. Repeated failure to comply with such directions is not consistent with r 6 of the Tribunal Rules. Further delay would create a futile and unnecessary impediment to the expeditious resolution of this matter. 
  1. [51]
    Therefore, in my opinion, the purpose of the Tribunal Rules is best fulfilled in this case by exercising the discretion under r 45 of the Tribunal Rules to dismiss Ms Sommerfeld's appeal.
  1. [52]
    I order accordingly.

Order

  1. That the appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.

Footnotes

[1] A/Executive Director QEII Hospital.

[2] Respondent's Written Submissions, 27 August 2021, 1 [5].

[3] Letter from Dr B. Kingswell to Ms N. Sommerfeld, 1 April 2021, 1.

[4] Letter from Ms N. Sommerfeld to Dr B. Kingswell, 23 April 2021.

[5] Letter from Mr K. Kinsella to Ms N. Sommerfeld dated 7 May 2021 but given to Ms Sommerfeld on 10 May 2021 as stated in Respondent's Submissions, 27 August 2021, 1 [8].

[6] Letter from Mr K. Kinsella to Ms N. Sommerfeld, 7 May 2021, 3.

[7] Letter from Ms N. Sommerfeld to Mr K. Kinsella, 17 May 2021.

[8] Letter from Dr B. Kingswell to Ms N. Sommerfeld, dated 7 July 2021 but issued on 20 July 2021 as stated in the Respondent's Submissions, 27 August 2021, 2 [13]. 

[9] Email from Ms L. Griffin (A/Director, Employment Relations) to Industrial Registry, 23 August 2021.

[10] Email from Ms L. Griffin (A/Director, Employment Relations) to the Industrial Registry, 23 August 2021.

[11] House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499, 503.

[12] Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1998] QCA 114, 6; citing Witten v Lombard Australia Ltd (1968) 88 W.N. (Pt. 1) N.S.W. 405.

[13] [1990] 98 ALR 200.

[14] Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1990] 98 ALR 200, 210.

[15] [2019] QIRC 028.

[16] [2017] QIRC 061.

[17] [2019] QIRC 144.

[18] See Workers' Compensation Regulator v Bero [2019] QIRC 36; Treanor v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 146.

[19] Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2001] QCA 176, 8.

[20] See Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] QIC 73; Workers' Compensation Regulator v Varga [2019] QIRC 028, 5-6.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Sommerfeld v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Sommerfeld v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 322

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member McLennan IC

  • Date:

    17 Sep 2021

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
Cady v Capital SMART Repairs Australia Pty Ltd [2019] QIRC 144
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 144
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 144
Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim[1999] 2 Qd R 113; [1998] QCA 114
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1998] QCA 114
Cite 2 - [1998] QCA 114
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1936) 55 CLR 499
Cite 2 - (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1990) 98 ALR 200
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 98 ALR 200
Cite 2 - (1990) 98 ALR 200
Cite 3 - (1990) 98 ALR 200
Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] QIC 73
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2005] QIC 73
Quinlan v Rothwell[2002] 1 Qd R 647; [2001] QCA 176
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QCA 176
Cite 2 - [2001] QCA 176
Seymour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 61
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QIRC 61
Cite 2 - [2017] QIRC 61
Treanor v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 146
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 146
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 146
Witten v Lombard Australia Ltd (1968) 88 W.N. (Pt 1) (N.S.W.) 405
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1968) 88 W.N. (Pt 1) (N.S.W.) 405
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Bero [2019] QIRC 36
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 36
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 36
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Varga [2019] QIRC 28
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 28
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 28
Cite 3 - [2019] QIRC 28

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Huyghe v State of Queensland (Mackay Hospital and Health Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 962 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.