Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2023
  4. Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2) - [2023] QIRC 79

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

Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)[2023] QIRC 79

Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)[2023] QIRC 79

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) & Anor (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 079

PARTIES:

Smith, Paul Joseph

(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(First Respondent)

&

Webb, Robert

(Second Respondent)

CASE NO.:

GP/2022/18

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

08 March 2023

MEMBER:

Power IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

Pursuant to r 64G, the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure filed by the Applicant is set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – GENERAL PROTECTIONS – Application in existing proceedings – where applicant filed a notice of non-party disclosure – where nominated party and affected party objects to the notice of non-party disclosure – where applicant seeks a decision regarding the objections pursuant to r 64G of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld)

LEGISLATION:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 144

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), ch 8 pt 1 div 3

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), rr 64B, 64E, 64F and 64G

Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld)

CASES:

Goldsmith v Sandilands [2002] HCA 31

Mullins v Workers' Compensation Regulator; Ex parte Drake International Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2020] QIRC 3

Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 190

Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney General) (No. 4) [2016] QIRC 75

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    On 20 September 2022, Mr Paul Joseph Smith ('the Applicant') filed a general protections application ('the Application') against the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the First Respondent') and Dr Robert Webb ('the Second Respondent') in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') pursuant to ch 8 pt 1 div 3 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act').
  1. [2]
    The Applicant appointed Dr Susannah Sherlock ('Dr Sherlock') as agent to represent him in the proceedings.
  1. [3]
    The Applicant is employed as a casual Hyperbaric Technician within the Metro North Hospital and Health Service ('MNHHS') in the hyperbaric unit ('the Unit') at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital ('RBWH'). The Applicant has been absent from work since August 2021.
  1. [4]
    The Application alleges that the Applicant suffered adverse action, namely, discrimination and victimisation, as a result of exercising a workplace right in seeking an injunction against the First Respondent, pursuant to s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)[1]('the injunction'). This application related to a separate claim by the Applicant alleging contraventions of the Anti-Discrimination Act.[2]
  1. [5]
    The Applicant contends that he suffered adverse action in the form of exclusion by the Second Respondent from a work meeting as a result of his action in seeking the injunction. The particulars were outlined by the Applicant in a schedule attached to the Application as follows, in summary, that:
  1. (a)
    the Applicant was advised by the Second Respondent that he did not consider it appropriate for the Applicant to attend a virtual work meeting as the Applicant was on sick leave, however, the Applicant was not on sick leave; and
  1. (b)
    the Applicant requested for a further explanation, to which the Second Respondent advised that he was informed by the Applicant's treating doctor that he was not to work in the Unit and that he considered attending the work meeting to be working in the Unit. The Second Respondent further referred to the decision regarding the injunction wherein it was outlined that the Applicant was fit to return to work but not with RBWH.
  1. [6]
    On 11 October 2022, the Applicant filed a Form 29 – Notice of non-party disclosure ('NNPD') to Mapien Workplace Strategists ('Mapien'), seeking disclosure from Mapien of 'any documents' submitted to the First Respondent relating to Dr Sherlock's complaint of reprisals ('the requested documents').
  1. [7]
    By letters dated 14 October 2022 and 19 October 2022, the First Respondent, as an affected party, and Mapien, respectively, objected to the NNPD.
  1. [8]
    By Application in existing proceedings filed on 21 October 2022, the Applicant seeks for a decision with respect to the objections made to the NNPD, pursuant to r 64G of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Rules').

Legislative framework

  1. [9]
    Rule 64G of the Rules relevantly provides the Commission the power to make any order it considers appropriate about an objection made to an NNPD:

64GIndustrial tribunal’s decision about objection

  1. (1)
    Within 7 days after service of an objection under rule 64E, the party may apply to the industrial tribunal for a decision about the objection.
  1. (2)
    The industrial tribunal may make any order it considers appropriate including, but not limited to, an order—
  1. (a)
    lifting the stay; or
  1. (b)
    varying the notice; or
  1. (c)
     setting aside the notice.
  1. (3)
     Unless the industrial tribunal otherwise orders, each party to an application to decide an objection must bear the party’s own costs of the application.
  1. [10]
    Rule 64B of the Rules provides the following:

64BNotice requiring non-party production

  1. (1)
     A party to a proceeding may, by notice of non-party production, require a person who is not party to the proceeding (the non-party) to produce to the party, within 14 days after service of the notice on the non-party, a document -
  1. (a)
     directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding; and
  1. (b)
     in the possession or under the control of the non-party; and
  1. (c)
     that is a document the non-party could be required to produce at the hearing for the proceeding.
  1. (2)
     The party may not require production of a document if there is available to the party another reasonably simple and inexpensive way of proving the matter sought to be proved by the document.
  1. (3)
     The non-party must comply with the notice but not before the end of 7 days after service of the notice on the non-party.
  1. (4)
     The requirement, under this rule, for a non-party to produce a document is not an ongoing duty.
  1. [11]
    Rule 64E of the Rules provides the following:

64E Objection to production

  1. (1)
    The non-party, or a person who has been served with a copy of the notice under rule 64D, may object to the production of some or all of the documents mentioned in the notice within 7 days after its service or, with the leave of the industrial tribunal, a later time.  
  1. (2)
    Also, another person who would be affected by the notice and who has not been served may object to the production of some or all of the documents mentioned in the notice at any time with the leave of the industrial tribunal.
  1. (3)
    The objection must -
  1. (a)
    be written; and
  1. (b)
    be served on the party; and
  1. (c)
    if the person objecting (the objector) is not the non-party - be served on the non‑party; and
  1. (d)
    clearly state the reasons for the objection.
  1. (4)
    The reasons may include, but are not limited to, the following -
  1. (a)
    if the objector is the non-party - the expense and inconvenience likely to be incurred by the non-party in complying with the notice;
  1. (b)
    the lack of relevance to the proceeding of the documents mentioned in the notice;
  1. (c)
    the lack of particularity with which the documents are described;
  1. (d)
    a claim of privilege;
  1. (e)
    the confidential nature of the documents or their contents;
  1. (f)
     the effect production would have on any person;
  1. (g)
     if the objector was not served with the notice - the fact that the objector should have been served.
  1. [12]
    Rule 64F of the Rules provides:

64FObjection stays notice

Service of an objection under rule 64E operates as a stay of the notice.

  1. [13]
    A number of principles relevant to the task of considering an objection to disclosure were identified in Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney General) (No. 4):[3]

[4]The case law relating to disclosure establishes a number of principles including the following which are relevant to the task confronting the Commission:

  • A decision of the Commission to order disclosure is a quintessential exercise of discretion.
  • To be discoverable a document must relate to the questions or issues to be decided by the proceedings.
  • A document is relevant if it contains information which enables the party calling for production of the document to advance its own case or damage the case of their adversary or it is a document which may fairly lead to a train of inquiry which may have either of those consequences.
  • A party will not be required to produce documents where to do so would be oppressive.
  • A request for disclosure must not be in the nature of a fishing expedition in the sense that it is an endeavour not to obtain evidence to support a case but to discover whether there is a case at all.
  • Orders for disclosure should not be made for the purpose of enabling a party to attack credibility.

The objections

  1. [14]
    The First Respondent's objection to the NNPD is outlined as follows:

The State objects to the Notice because:

  1. (a)
     The Notice is issued in respect of GP/2022/18 (Application).
  1. (b)
     In the Application, Mr Smith alleges he suffered adverse action. In particular, he alleges he was disinvited from a work meeting because he sought an injunction pursuant to s 144 Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
  1. (c)
     The Notice seeks disclosure of any documents provided by Mapien to the State regarding 'Dr Sherlocks complaint of reprisals (sic)'.
  1. (d)
     The documents sought are not directly relevant to a matter in issue in the Application, as required by r 64B(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld).
  1. [15]
    Mapien's objection to the NNPD is outlined as follows:

The Notice required Mapien to produce "any documents submitted to [the First Respondent] in relation to Dr Sherlock's complaint of reprisals" (Requested Documents).

Mapien objects to the Notice. Mapien sets out below the reasons for that objection … :

  1. (a)
     The Notice is issued in respect of GP/2022/18 (Application);
  1. (b)
     In the Application, Mr Smith alleges that he was subjected to unlawful adverse action. In particular, he alleges that he was disinvited from a work meeting because he exercised his right to seek an injunction pursuant to s 144 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld);
  1. (c)
     The Notice seeks that Mapien disclose the Requested Documents;
  1. (d)
     It is not apparent how the documents are said to be directly relevant to a matter in issue in the Application, as required by r 64B(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld);
  1. (e)
     In addition, Mapien contends that the Requested Documents are of a confidential nature within the meaning of that term per r 64E(4)(e) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld); and
  1. (f)
     Finally, Mapien considers that, having regard to the content of the document(s) that would be captured by the Requested Documents, production may have an adverse effect on persons who have provided information to Mapien and whose identity is disclosed by the Requested Documents – see, in this regard, r 64E(4)(f) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld).

Applicant's submissions

  1. [16]
    The Applicant submits that he has alleged the two following incidents of adverse action:

• Exclusion from a work meeting by Dr Webb

• Non compliance with a workcover investigation by MNHHS by misrepresentation of the Mapien investigation … into previous complaints of bullying resulting in injury.

  1. [17]
    The Applicant states that the Second Respondent was subject to an investigation for alleged bullying and discrimination towards several staff members as a result of a public interest disclosure. The Applicant submits that the requested documents would:
  1. (a)
    establish a pattern of behaviour of the Second Respondent; and
  1. (b)
    prevent the Second Respondent from any future interview process if it is sustained that bullying has occurred. 
  1. [18]
    The Applicant submits that the document sought would show if there was a deliberate obstruction on part of MNHHS to protect themselves from a Workcover claim and would allow the Applicant to know how much culpability his employer had when obstructing Workcover. The Applicant further submits that the document is required to verify a misrepresentation made by MNHHS to Workcover in an attempt to deny vicarious liability in this matter.
  1. [19]
    The Applicant submits that the First Respondent ignores the contention that the employer was aware the Applicant was being bullied by the Directors but had not acted, allowing for further bullying to take place. The Applicant submits that, without being able to read the investigation report, the contention remains and further, that withholding such a document from the Applicant is obstruction.
  1. [20]
    The Applicant outlines the following with respect to the issue of confidentiality:

… We submit that Mr Smith, whilst exercising his work place right to express a concern was bullied for doing so by Dr Webb (exclusion)and QH (misleading Workcover) both are adverse actions.

However, the issue proceeding this complaint which is linked to it by Dr Webb has also been accepted as a PID by MNHHS Integrity Unit. The injury (mental health) was the stated reasoning when Dr Webb refused Mr Smith to attend a meeting. This was arguably an adverse action under the IR Act after his injury was considered by MNHHS to constitute a PID…

  1. [21]
    The Applicant submits that all confidentiality is lost once the disclosers, the alleged reprisal and the accused have all been named in the Commission, which was the case in Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health).[4] The Applicant submits the following:

The report into previous reprisals to Mr Smith pre dating the new ones are relevant and are no longer confidential. Mr Smith is named as having had a mental injury (psychotic episode) due to raising safety concerns. The report allows an understanding of whether the reprisals were proven BEFORE further reprisals in the form of adverse actions were taken.

  1. [22]
    The Applicant submits that the only people likely to be affected by the disclosure of the requested documents are those who have culpability.

First Respondent's submissions

  1. [23]
    The First Respondent submits that the documents sought are irrelevant, outlining that the Application contains a single allegation of adverse action within the meaning of the IR Act in that the Second Respondent disinvited the Applicant from a work meeting because he sought an injunction. The First Respondent submits, in summary, that:
  1. (a)
    the many and varied allegations contained in the Applicant's submissions are irrelevant as they are not part of the Application;
  1. (b)
    the Application contains no allegation of adverse action regarding the Applicant's unsuccessful WorkCover claim. The Application contains a single reference to Workcover relating only to the Applicant arguing that he wants access to the investigation materials;
  1. (c)
    the issue for determination is whether the Second Respondent disinvited the Applicant from a work meeting because he sought an injunction against the First Respondent and as such, the matters in issue are the factors which caused the Second Respondent to act; and
  1. (d)
    matters such as whether the First Respondent engaged in 'reasonable management action' or the veracity of complaints or other proceedings brought by the Applicant and Dr Sherlock are irrelevant to the Application and do not go to why the Second Respondent disinvited the Applicant from the work meeting.
  1. [24]
    The First Respondent highlights that in 2021, it engaged Mapien to investigate earlier complaints made by Dr Sherlock and the Applicant and to prepare a report, which is currently in draft form, and submits that the NNPD, in effect, seeks those investigation documents. The First Respondent submits that:
  1. (a)
    the information contained in those investigation documents would not assist the Commission to determine why the Second Respondent disinvited the Applicant from a work meeting;
  1. (b)
    those documents only address matters pre-dating the Applicant's previous injunction application;
  1. (c)
    insofar as the Applicant says the documents' mere existence makes them relevant, the documents' existence is not disputed by the First Respondent however to be disclosable the documents must be directly relevant to a matter in issue.
  1. (d)
    the content of the document does not and could not sensibly go to whether the First Respondent withheld those documents from Workcover because the Applicant sought an injunction.
  1. [25]
    The First Respondent submits that, even if the Commission decided to consider the issues relating to Workcover and that they were to be made a part of the Application, the documents sought are not directly relevant and are irrelevant to those matters.
  1. [26]
    The First Respondent submits that several factors weigh against lifting the stay on the NNPD, submitting that:
  1. (a)
    the Applicant appears to be attempting to access to various documents possessed by the First Respondent for use in his Workcover proceedings which is an abuse of process; and
  1. (b)
    whilst it is accepted that litigation often necessitates disclosure of confidential information because that information is directly relevant and useful to the Commission, the information sought are not directly relevant and there is, therefore, no legitimate basis to disturb that confidentiality.
  1. [27]
    The First Respondent further outlines that the following approach taken by the Applicant defies the Rules and the 'direct relevance test':

Mr Smith's approach has been to:

  1. (a)
     file the GP Application, containing a single specific adverse action allegation; then
  1. (b)
     file the Notice, seeking documents irrelevant to the GP Application; then
  1. (c)
     make submissions in support of the Notice which do not relate to the GP Application, but instead makes new allegations. Those new allegations are inherently not general protections issues (such as whether the State engaged in reasonable management action), and appear to relate only to Mr Smith's Workcover proceedings; and then
  1. (d)
     press the Notice, by arguing that the documents sought in the Notice are relevant to those new allegations.
  1. [28]
    The First Respondent submits that if such an approach was to be permitted, the Applicant could access all manner of documents regardless of their irrelevance to the Application.

Mapien's submissions

  1. [29]
    Mapien contends that the documents sought are not directly relevant, submitting, in summary, that:
  1. (a)
    the Applicant's submissions regarding alleged adverse action in the form of some misrepresentation by the First Respondent to Workcover is not discernible from the Application and so should be disregarded for the purposes of the Application currently before the Commission;
  1. (b)
    it is not apparent how the documents sought that relate to complaints made by the Applicant could be directly relevant to the Application when the workplace right said to have motivated the taking of the adverse action is the Applicant's pursuit of an injunction, as distinct from the Applicant's making of any complaints; and
  1. (c)
    on the Applicant's own admission, the 'investigation report' as referred to by the Applicant, was not provided to the First Respondent until July 2022. As such, it is unclear how such a report could have influenced or had any bearing on a decision that was taken by the Second Respondent in June 2022.
  1. [30]
    Mapien further contends that the documents sought are of a confidential nature and would have an adverse effect on other persons, submitting, in summary, that:
  1. (a)
    the contractual arrangement pursuant to which Mapien has been engaged to provide the report explicitly refers to a requirement that Mapien keep the investigation and its substance confidential, such that a failure to do so may result in contractual implications;
  1. (b)
    the complaints being investigated through the report are a public interest disclosure pursuant to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld), such that the content of the report is confidential and there are potentially significant penalties to the disclosure of any person who has participated, as a witness, in the preparation of the report;
  1. (c)
    to the extent that the investigation report appears to constitute the documents sought, any application requiring Mapien to disclose documents that entail public interest disclosure considerations should be approached with caution, particularly in circumstances where the relevance of the documents has not been properly established; and
  1. (d)
    the investigation report contains records of interview and/or reports received from more than half a dozen witnesses and/or complainants. The disclosure of the investigation report would result in the identity of these individuals being divulged to parties and would have an adverse effect on those persons, both in a personal and potentially professional capacity.

Applicant's submissions in reply

  1. [31]
    In reply, the Applicant made extensive submissions which, in summary, reiterates his submissions made regarding alleged misleading and misrepresentation made by MNHHS to Workcover, submitting that the disclosure of the requested documents will assist in resolving this issue.
  1. [32]
    The Applicant disagrees with the reframing of the two 'complaints' into a single 'complaint'. The Applicant submits that this does not assist in the efficiency in dealing with the two 'complaints'. The Applicant submits that the Commission is not bound by the wording of the Application and the application in existing proceedings which requested the Applicant to outline why the requested document is relevant. The Applicant further submits that the complaint is clear and specific.
  1. [33]
    The Applicant raises concerns regarding any approach by the First Respondent's legal representatives to 'coerce' Mapien in not providing the requested documents would be contrary to their obligations to the court and would be unethical.
  1. [34]
    The Applicant denies that he is fishing for 'all manner of documents' as the document is relevant and specific. The Applicant submits that the requested documents be disclosed to prevent 'perversion of natural justice'.
  1. [35]
    The Applicant submits that the lack of reasonable management action may be relevant to the Application and outlines the following:

… Dr Webb could not have attempted to cause further harm to Mr Smith after he had sought relief via QIRC and QHRC if the report had shown wrongdoing and MNHHS had addressed the behaviours. Had he been removed from a position of power he could not have written the email excluding Mr Smith. The document requested allows this allegation to be refuted or acknowledged.

  1. [36]
    The Applicant submits the requested document will be able to clarify the following:

… (1) did the Mapien report confirm the alleged discriminatory behaviour pattern alleged by Dr Sherlock against her husband by the Directors?... (2) Had the report been denied to exist by MNHHS to Workcover in September when we allege it was given to the CEO in July? …

  1. [37]
    The Applicant further submits, in summary, that:
  1. (a)
    the requested documents have bearing on the actions or inactions of the First Respondent in respect of the actions of the Second Respondent.
  1. (b)
    the requested documents should not be confidential from the Applicant who has raised allegations of cover ups and subsequent bullying;
  1. (c)
    the confidentiality is now lost given the fact that the public interest disclosure has been 'openly discussed on a public website' due to the injunction request;
  1. (d)
    MNHHS will only be adversely affected if the requested document reveals a lack management action to protect employees from victimisation; and
  1. (e)
    discovery is critical to maintaining natural justice.

Consideration

  1. [38]
    The basis upon which the Respondents object to the NNPD primarily relates to the relevance of the documents, with Mapien also opposing the application due to the confidential nature of the documents.
  1. [39]
    The Applicant raises concerns regarding any approach by the First Respondent's legal representatives to 'coerce' Mapien into not providing the requested documents. There is no evidence of any such conduct by the legal representatives.
  1. [40]
    Rule 64B entitles the Applicant to require (by a notice of non-party disclosure) production of a document which inter alia is directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding. In Mullins v Workers' Compensation Regulator; Ex parte Drake International Pty Ltd (No. 2)[5]. Commissioner Black stated the following:

"In Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors, McMurdo J was asked to consider the distinction between the test of relevance under the general law and the requirement of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCRP) which is that only directly relevant documents must be disclosed. In this respect, McMurdo J said that "a document is directly relevant in this sense only if it tends to prove or disprove an allegation in issue in the proceedings."[6]

  1. [41]
    In 2021, the First Respondent engaged Mapien to investigate previous complaints made by Dr Sherlock and the Applicant, and to prepare a report following the investigation. The draft of the report was provided to the First Respondent in July 2022.
  1. [42]
    The Applicant filed the injunction application on 20 May 2022. The matter was heard on 1 June 2022 and the alleged adverse action involving the Second Respondent disinviting the Applicant from a work meeting occurred on 10 June 2022.
  1. [43]
    The central question in the substantive matter is whether the Second Respondent disinvited the Applicant from a work meeting because the Applicant sought an injunction against the First Respondent. The NNPD seeks documents submitted to the First Respondent 'from Mapien in relation to Dr Sherlock’s complaint of reprisals.'[7]I am not persuaded that such documents are directly relevant to the question to be determined in this matter.
  1. [44]
    In Goldsmith v Sandilands[8] the High Court of Australia considered that evidence is relevant "…if it could rationally affect, directly or indirectly, the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding."[9] The Mapien documents investigated matters that arose prior to the injunction application and so will not assist in determining whether the Second Respondent's action in disinviting the Applicant occurred because of the Applicant's injunction application. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the Mapien documents could affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue in the substantive proceedings.
  1. [45]
    The Applicant submits that the Respondents misled Workcover and contends that the Mapien documents will assist in resolving this issue. The Applicant attached to the substantive application a schedule[10] outlining eighteen paragraphs particularising the adverse action claim. The issue regarding Workcover is mentioned in the final paragraph which states:

19) Further, we request consideration of this matter under the IR Act as a civil matter, despite the PID protections, to allow for the of [sic] reversal of onus under the Act. The employer has to date not shared the investigative report which has been already submitted to the CEO. They have also denied Workcover access to the report whilst alleging they are unable to provide documents due to a QIRC investigation. There is no record of any independent QIRC investigation. Without access to the report there is an unfair disadvantage on the complainant to prove the case of repeated discrimination when denied access to the investigative report.

  1. [46]
    The above paragraph cannot reasonably be interpreted as alleging adverse action, rather it outlines an issue with respect to the Applicant's Workcover claim and the provision of the Mapien documents by the Respondents as part of that claim.
  1. [47]
    This process cannot be used to obtain documents for purposes other than those for which the documents are sought. It would be an abuse of process to use this application to seek documents for use in a separate workers compensation proceeding. Issues relating to the Respondents' alleged refusal to provide the Mapien documents to Workcover are separate to this matter and are not a relevant consideration for the purposes of determining this application. In addition, whilst consideration of reasonable management action may be relevant to workers compensation matters, that is not the test in determining the substantive general protections matter.
  1. [48]
    The Applicant's contention that the Mapien documents may confirm a discriminatory pattern by the Respondents does not support a conclusion that the report is directly relevant. As outlined above, the substantive matter involves an assessment of whether the reason the Second Respondent disinvited the Applicant was because he filed the injunction application to protect his interests. A report addressing complaints made prior to both the exercise of the workplace right and the alleged adverse action is not directly relevant to this assessment.
  1. [49]
    Mapien objects to providing copies of the complaint further on the basis of r 64E(4)(e), which provides that an objection may include 'the confidential nature of the document or their contents.'
  1. [50]
    In circumstances where I have made a determination that the documents are not relevant it is not necessary to consider the objection based on the confidential nature of the documents.

Conclusion

  1. [51]
    I am not satisfied that the documents sought are directly relevant to the matter to be determined and in accordance with r 64G determine that the NNPD should be set aside.

Order

  1. [52]
    I make the following orders:

Pursuant to r 64G, the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure filed by the Applicant is set aside.

Footnotes

[1] See Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 190 where the application was dismissed.

[2] AD/2022/86.

[3] [2016] QIRC 75.

[4] [2022] QIRC 190.

[5] [2020] QIRC 3.

[6] Ibid [28].

[7] Form 29 - Notice of non-party disclosure – Mapien.

[8] [2002] HCA 31.

[9] Ibid [2].

[10] Schedule 1.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) & Anor (No. 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)

  • MNC:

    [2023] QIRC 79

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Power IC

  • Date:

    08 Mar 2023

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
Goldsmith v Sandilands [2002] HCA 31
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2002] HCA 31
Cite 2 - [2002] HCA 31
Mullins v Workers' Compensation Regulator; Ex parte Drake International Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] QIRC 3
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 3
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 3
Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 190
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 190
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 190
Cite 3 - [2022] QIRC 190
Weston v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 4) [2016] QIRC 75
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QIRC 75
Cite 2 - [2016] QIRC 75

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.