Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2023
  4. Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) - [2023] QIRC 93

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

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6)[2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6)[2023] QIRC 93

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 093

PARTIES:

Robertson, B

(Complainant)

v

McDonald's Australia Limited

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

AD/2021/7

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings 

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2023

HEARING DATE:

24 February 2023

MEMBER:

Merrell DP

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS:

  1. The orders made in paragraph [57] of these reasons for decision.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION – DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE – Complainant alleges age discrimination and the asking of unnecessary questions against the Respondent – Complainant filed and served statement of facts and contentions – Respondent subsequently filed application seeking an order to strike out the Complainant's proceeding – principles to be considered in respect of an application to strike out a proceeding – principles to be considered in respect of an application to strike out a statement of facts and contentions – whether Complainant's statement of facts and contentions put the Respondent on notice of the case it has to meet – Complainant's statement of facts and contentions struck out – Complainant given opportunity to file a further statement of facts and contentions – matter to then be reviewed

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 451

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 5, r 6, r 12 and r 45

CASES:

House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499

Mackay Regional Council v Queensland Services, Industrial Union of Employees & Ors (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 011

Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115

Pennington v Jamieson [2022] ICQ 22

Queensland Police Union of Employees v HS First Inc. [2023] QIRC 030

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2021] QIRC 344

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2022] ICQ 025

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 2) [2022] ICQ 11

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 373

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 3) [2022] QIRC 437

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 438

Spencer v The Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118

Workers' Compensation Regulator v Carr [2023] ICQ 001

APPEARANCES:

The Complainant on his own behalf.

Mr J. McLean of Counsel instructed by Ms L. Dearlove of Colin Biggers & Paisley for the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision (ex tempore)

Introduction 

  1. [1]
    On 5 September 2020, Mr B. Robertson made a complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission against McDonald's Australia Limited ('McDonald's). 
  1. [2]
    The complaint concerned allegations, in the work area, of age discrimination and unlawful requests for information contrary to the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.
  1. [3]
    On 16 February 2021, the complaint was referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. In this Commission, the complaint that has been referred is Case No. AD/2021/7 ('the proceeding').
  1. [4]
    On 18 November 2022, McDonald's filed an application in existing proceedings seeking an order striking out the proceeding ('McDonald's application'). Having regard to the written submissions filed by McDonald's in support of its application, its grounds are: 
  1. (a)
    Mr Robertson has not provided his full name and a residential or business address for service as required by the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Rules') and his non-compliance is continuing; and
  1. (b)
    Mr Robertson has failed to file a statement of facts and contentions that puts McDonald's on notice of the case it must meet despite being given two opportunities to do so.
  1. [5]
    The question for my determination is whether I should strike out or dismiss the proceeding.

The history of the proceedings

  1. [6]
    A conciliation conference in respect of the complaint took place on 5 May 2021. The conference was unsuccessful in resolving the complaint.
  1. [7]
    On 30 June 2021, Mr Robertson filed and served a statement of facts and contentions in relation to his complaint. 
  1. [8]
    On 4 August 2021, McDonald's made an application in existing proceedings that the proceeding be dismissed because Mr Robertson's complaint had no merit or, in the alternative, the proceeding be stayed until Mr Robertson obtained legal representation and was able to file a statement of facts and contentions that was clear and concise. 
  1. [9]
    By order dated 8 October 2021, Industrial Commissioner Dwyer stayed the proceeding for one year for the purpose of giving Mr Robertson leave to file and serve a compliant statement of facts and contentions and that he obtain legal representation.[1] Mr Robertson appealed the orders made by Industrial Commissioner Dwyer to the Industrial Court of Queensland ('the Court').
  1. [10]
    By the third order made on 29 April 2022 by Davis J, President of the Court, the complaint was stayed until Mr Robertson filed a statement of facts and contentions which put McDonald's on notice of the case that it has to meet.[2]
  1. [11]
    On 30 September 2022, Mr Robertson filed and served a second statement of facts and contentions ('Mr Robertson's SOFAC').
  1. [12]
    On 18 November 2022, after McDonald's filed its present application, Mr Robertson filed a third version of his statement of facts and contentions. However, as best as I can make out, that third statement of facts and contentions is the same as the statement of facts and contentions Mr Robertson filed on 30 September 2022.
  1. [13]
    In respect of the proceeding, there have been a number of other interlocutory hearings, decisions and orders made by the Court and the Commission that are in addition to the conference and hearings referred to above. Mr McLean of Counsel, who appeared today on behalf of McDonald's, submitted that, in total, Mr Robertson has filed 30 applications in existing proceedings.
  1. [14]
    On my review, the other interlocutory decisions and orders are:
  1. (a)
    on 27 July 2022, when sitting as the Industrial Court of Queensland, I made an order dismissing an application in existing proceedings Mr Robertson filed on 3 June 2022;[3]
  1. (b)
    on 1 September 2022, when sitting as the Commission, following Mr Robertson making twelve applications in existing proceedings between 13 July 2022 and 25 August 2022, I dismissed an application in existing proceedings filed by Mr Robertson on 25 August 2022;[4]
  1. (c)
    on 5 October 2022, Mr Robertson made two other applications in existing proceedings for orders that:
  1. i.
    McDonald's disclose who owns it as a corporation; and 
  1. ii.
    Mr Robertson's other applications in existing proceedings be decided on the papers; 
  1. (d)
    on 12 October 2022, when sitting as the Commission, I dismissed the application in existing proceedings filed by Mr Robertson on 28 July 2022 (by which Mr Robertson sought an order that I recuse myself from the proceeding);[5]
  1. (e)
    also on 12 October 2022, when sitting as the Commission, I dismissed four of the remaining applications in existing proceedings filed by Mr Robertson and I foreshadowed directions for the hearing and determination of the remaining applications (which were subsequently discontinued by Mr Robertson);[6]
  1. (f)
    on 5 January 2023, when sitting as the Commission, I scheduled a hearing in respect of an urgent application filed by Mr Robertson on 3 January 2023, however, there was no appearance by Mr Robertson at that hearing; 
  1. (g)
    on 30 January 2023, Davis J, President, when sitting as the Court, heard and dismissed an application for a stay and an application to appeal filed by Mr Robertson; and
  1. (h)
    on 14 February 2023, when sitting as the Commission, I heard and dismissed eight additional applications in existing proceedings filed by Mr Robertson between 31 October 2022 and 9 February 2023.
  1. McDonald's submissions 
  1. [15]
    In general, McDonald's submits that despite Mr Robertson having had many opportunities to do so, he has neither:
  1. (a)
    properly identified himself, including by providing his full name and a residential or business address as required by r 12 of the Rules; or
  1. (b)
    provided it with a cogent statement of facts and contentions of the kind that would allow it to properly understand the case against it and the allegations to which it is required to respond.
  1. [16]
    I will deal with the second ground first.
  1. [17]
    In seeking an order that the proceeding is struck out, McDonald's seeks to enliven s 451(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act'). Chapter 11, pt 2, div 3 of the IR Act sets out the functions, jurisdiction and general powers of the Commission. Section 451 of the Act is contained in that division and relevantly provides: 
  1. 451
    General powers
  1. (1)
    The commission has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions.
  1. (2)
    Without limiting subsection (1), the commission in proceedings may-
  1. (a)
    give directions about the hearing of a matter; or
  1. (b)
    make a decision it considers appropriate, irrespective of the relief sought by a party; or
  1. (c)
    make an order it considers appropriate.
  1. [18]
    In the performance of its functions, the general powers conferred on the Commission, by s 451(1) and (2) of the IR Act, are very wide. This includes, for example, conferring power to summarily dismiss an adverse action application if the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear it,[7] power to make an order for summary judgment and power to strike out a party's statement of facts and contentions.[8] The width of the general powers contained in s 451 of the IR Act may be restricted by the statutory scheme.[9] 
  1. [19]
    In my view, s 451(2)(c) of the IR Act is a source of power for the Commission to summarily dismiss an application or a complaint where the circumstances are such that an applicant or complainant, despite being given a reasonable opportunity to do so, cannot comply with an order made by the Commission to articulate their case by way of a statement of facts and contentions. 
  1. [20]
    The general law principles around the exercise of such a power are clear. In Spencer v The Commonwealth,[10] French CJ and Gummow J stated:
  1. [24]
    The exercise of powers to summarily terminate proceedings must always be attended with caution. That is so whether such disposition is sought on the basis that the pleadings fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action or on the basis that the action is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process. The same applies where such a disposition is sought in a summary judgment application supported by evidence. As to the latter, this Court in Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd said:
  1. “The power to order summary or final judgment is one that should be exercised with great care and should never be exercised unless it is clear that there is no real question to be tried.”
  1. More recently, in Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ repeated a statement by Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Agar v Hyde which included the following:
  1. “Ordinarily, a party is not to be denied the opportunity to place his or her case before the court in the ordinary way, and after taking advantage of the usual interlocutory processes. The test to be applied has been expressed in various ways, but all of the verbal formulae which have been used are intended to describe a high degree of certainty about the ultimate outcome of the proceeding if it were allowed to go to trial in the ordinary way.”
  1. [21]
    Even if I am wrong about s 451(2)(c) of the IR Act being the source of such a power, it is undeniable that such a power exists by virtue of r 45 of the Rules.
  1. [22]
    Rule 5 of the Rules relevantly provides that the Rules apply to a proceeding before the Commission. Rule 6 relevantly provides that the purpose of the Rules is to provide for the just and expeditious disposition of the business of the Commission at a minimum of expense.
  1. [23]
    Rule 45 provides:
  1. 45
    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
  1. (b)
    the party fails to attend the hearing or 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
  1. (b)
    the party fails to comply with the order.
  1. (3)
    The court, commission or registrar may-
  1. (a)
    dismiss the proceeding; or
  1. (b)
    make a further directions order; or
  1. (c)
    make another order dealing with the proceeding that the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate, including, for example, a final order; or
  1. (d)
    make orders under paragraphs (b) and (c).
  1. [24]
    In Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors,[11] Vice President O'Connor stated in respect of r 45 of the Rules:
  1. [8]
    In Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd his Honour President Hall, in dealing with an application to strike out for want of prosecution, cited with approval the reasoning of Thomas JA in Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor as follows:

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.

  1. [9]
    Whilst Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor related to the application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 in respect of application to dismiss for want of prosecution, in my respectful view, the reasoning of Thomas JA has equal application to the current proceedings.
  1. [10]
    In Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd, Wilcox and Gummow JJ in dealing with a similar provision under the Federal Court Rules stated that the discretion conferred by the rule was:

unconfined, except for the condition of noncompliance with a direction ... [b]ut two situations are obvious candidates for the exercise of the power." The first were "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". The second were 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.

  1. [11]
    Their Honours went on to observe:

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.

  1. [25]
    Vice President O'Connor also stated that the discretion conferred under r 45 must be exercised judicially.[12]
  1. [26]
    A party's statement of facts and contentions must be drawn so as to allow the other party or parties, and the Commission, to know what the case is about, and to know, before the trial starts, the real issues that remain in dispute and that must be resolved.[13]
  1. [27]
    As to Mr Robertson's SOFAC, McDonald's submits:
  1. The Second SoFC is, respectfully, incoherent. A review of the Second SOFC reveals a document replete with irrelevant allusions and indecipherable allegations, and one which fails to put the Respondent on notice of the case which it is required to meet.
  1. It is trite that the statement of facts and contentions is an important. document. It is a document designed to ensure a respondent is on notice of the case against it, and serves to limit the issues with which the parties will be required to engage.The Second SOFC clearly fails to achieve these purposes.
  1. The Respondent acknowledges that the power to strike out a proceeding and bring an end to a claim is one not to be exercised lightly. However, in Quaedvlieg v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 180 QGIG 1209, Hall P cited with approval the following observations of Thomas JA in Quinlan v Rothwell [2002] 1 Qd R 647:

There is now a consciousness for 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.

  1. There is no reason these observations are not apposite to proceedings conducted in this Commission. The public interest, and notions of natural justice and procedural fairness, warrant no less, and the Respondent may be irremediably prejudiced if it is required to file its response in circumstances where the case against it is not clear.
  1. For these reasons, the Claim plainly cannot proceed by reference to the Second SoFC, and the appropriate course in circumstances where the Complainant is unwilling to provide, or is otherwise incapable of preparing, a compliant SoFC, is for the Claim to be struck out.[14]

Mr Robertson's submissions

  1. [28]
    Despite Mr Robertson, in respect of McDonald's application, being ordered to file and serve written submissions by 24 January 2023, it was only at 8.55 am today that he filed and served written submissions in respect of McDonald's application. 
  1. [29]
    As best as I can make out from Mr Robertson's written submissions, the only relevant contentions he makes are that:
  1. (a)
    McDonald's application should be adjourned until a review he has commenced with Legal Aid Queensland, about a decision not to provide him with further legal advice, has been determined; and
  1. (b)
    the various applications he has filed have been accepted for filing despite his non-compliance with r 12 of the Rules.

Mr Robertson's statement of facts and contentions

  1. [30]
    Industrial Commissioner Dwyer, in his decision dated 8 October 2021, provided a convenient summary of Mr Robertson's complaint. Industrial Commissioner Dwyer stated:
  1. [1]
    On 5 September 2020, Mr Bruce Robertson lodged a complaint ('the complaint') with the Queensland Human Rights Commission ('QHRC'). Mr Robertson named McDonald's Australia Limited as the respondent ('McDonald's'). 
  1. [2]
    The complaint was characterised by the QHRC as alleging contraventions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ('the AD Act') with respect to age discrimination (s 7 of the AD Act) and unnecessary questions (s 124 of the AD Act). 
  1. [3]
    The particulars of Mr Robertson's complaint that can be gleaned from his material appear to be that: when applying for employment at the McDonald's Mt Isa store in 2019 (and possibly 2014) the application form required Mr Robertson to select an age range to which he belonged. Mr Robertson did not answer this question on the form. It ought to be noted that these details are by no means clearly pleaded in the complaint form.[15] 
  1. [31]
    I annex, to these reasons, Mr Robertson's SOFAC. 
  1. [32]
    Having regard to Mr Robertson's SOFAC, there is much force in the submissions made by McDonald's. 
  1. [33]
    Unless McDonald's reasonably knows of the case it has to meet, then there is a real risk McDonald's will suffer practical injustice and be denied procedural fairness.
  1. [34]
    There are a number of reasons why, in my view, Mr Robertson's SOFAC does not reasonably put McDonald's on notice of the case it has to meet. 
  1. [35]
    First, contrary to the complaint that seemed to be accepted by the Queensland Human Rights Commission, the advertisement for employment was at a McDonald's restaurant in Mount Isa and not in Bundaberg as is set out in the second paragraph of the first page of Mr Robertson's SOFAC. Mr Robertson's SOFAC seems to concern a different case.
  1. [36]
    Secondly, it is difficult to discern exactly what is alleged in the remaining paragraphs on the first page, and in the first paragraph on the second page, of Mr Robertson's SOFAC. Whilst Mr Robertson seems to refer to direct and indirect discrimination and to (what I assume to be) sections of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, it is not clear if Mr Robertson did apply for employment with McDonald's online or if he did not. The best that can be said is that Mr Robertson seems to contend that he was precluded from applying for employment (somewhere) with McDonald's because he was over twenty years old.
  1. [37]
    Thirdly, the remaining paragraphs on the second page and the remaining eight pages of Mr Robertson's SOFAC are a combination of submissions, evidence, an allegation that the supplier of the software used by McDonald's, to receive online applications for employment, facilitated unlawful discrimination on the basis of age or age groups, an allegation that McDonald's Privacy Policy has contravened privacy laws and an allegation that McDonald's has engaged in unconscionable conduct.
  1. [38]
    Fourthly, Mr Robertson does not clearly set out how it is that he has suffered loss in the nature of general damages in the amount of $50,000,000 as he claims.
  1. [39]
    It is impossible, on a plain reading of Mr Robertson's SOFAC, to know what the material facts are as alleged by Mr Robertson. The material facts are not clearly and concisely expressed. There are no clearly expressed contentions alleging contraventions, by McDonald's, of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.
  1. [40]
    The result is that McDonald's is left in a position where it cannot reasonably know the case that it has to meet.

Other non-compliance with the Rules

  1. [41]
    McDonald's submits that Mr Robertson has not complied with r 12 of the Rules in that, in none of the material he has filed with the Industrial Registry, has he properly identified himself by providing his Christian name and a residential or business address. 
  1. [42]
    I accept Mr Robertson has not, in any document that he is filed with the Industrial Registry which has made its way to me, given a residential or business address.
  1. [43]
    This clearly does not comply with r 12(1)(a) of the Rules. 
  1. [44]
    However, no issue was taken by McDonald's about this matter, at least before me, in respect of the other interlocutory proceedings I have referred to earlier in these reasons for decision.
  1. [45]
    Given that history, I am not, at the present time, prepared to dismiss Mr Robertson's complaint for that reason.

What order should be made?

  1. [46]
    I will not adjourn McDonald's application until the determination of the review by Legal Aid Queensland about its decision not to provide Mr Robertson with further legal advice. This matter has been on foot in this Commission since 16 February 2021. In my view, Mr Robertson has had ample time to sort out any issues around the provision of legal advice to him about the proceeding. 
  1. [47]
    For the reasons I have given, Mr Robertson's SOFAC does not comply with the third order made by Davis J on 29 April 2022. That is to say, Mr Robertson has not complied with the order that he files and serves a statement or notice of facts and contentions which places McDonald's on proper notice of the case it must meet.
  1. [48]
    This is the second time Mr Robertson has failed to comply with an order that he file and serve a statement of facts and contentions which places McDonald's on proper notice of the case it has to meet.
  1. [49]
    Mr Robertson is representing himself. Mr Robertson has sought legal advice or representation from Legal Aid Queensland. That assistance has not been forthcoming.

Whilst this is a misfortune for Mr Robertson, it is not a privilege. Mr Robertson must comply with the orders made by the Court and the Commission like any other litigant. 

  1. [50]
    For the reasons given above, Mr Robertson's SOFAC should be struck out.
  1. [51]
    However, to ensure proper fairness to Mr Robertson as a self-represented litigant, while I will strike out his SOFAC filed on 30 September 2022, I will give Mr Robertson a further reasonable period of time to file and serve another SOFAC which puts McDonald's on proper notice of the case it has to meet, namely, Mr Robertson's complaint that he has been the subject of unlawful age discrimination by McDonald's and that McDonald's has made unlawful requests for information in contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.
  1. [52]
    Mr McLean submitted that Mr Robertson has had ample time to file and serve such a statement of facts and contentions. There is merit in that submission.
  1. [53]
    Balancing the fairness to be afforded to Mr Robertson and to McDonalds, I will give Mr Robertson 14 days from today to file and serve such a statement of facts and contentions, namely, by 4.00 pm on Friday, 10 March 2023.
  1. [54]
    I will then list the matter for a further review. 
  1. [55]
    I will hear any application, made by any party, which is made before the date of the review. 
  1. [56]
    Alternatively, I will hear, on the date of the review, any oral application made by any party on that date. 

Orders

  1. [57]
    I make the following orders:
  1. 1.
    Pursuant to s 451(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, that the Complainant's Statement of facts and contentions, filed on 30 September 2022, is struck out.
  1. 2.
    Pursuant to r 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, that the Complainant files in the Industrial Registry, and serves on the Respondent, a Statement of facts and contentions which places the Respondent on proper notice of the case it must meet, by 4.00 pm on Friday, 10 March 2023.
  1. 3.
    Case No. AD/2021/7 be reviewed at 10.00 am on Wednesday,12 April 2023.

Annexure 1

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6) [2023] QIRC 93

Footnotes

[1]  Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2021] QIRC 344.

[2]  Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 2) [2022] ICQ 11.

[3]  Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2022] ICQ 025.

[4]  Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 373.

[5]  Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 3) [2022] QIRC 437.

[6]   Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 438.

[7]    Pennington v Jamieson [2022] ICQ 22, [18] (Davis J, President).

[8]   Queensland Police Union of Employees v HS First Inc. [2023] QIRC 030, [27]-[28] (Deputy President  Merrell, Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon and Industrial Commissioner Power).

[9]    Mackay Regional Council v Queensland Services, Industrial Union of Employees & Ors (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 011, [50] (Davis J, President, Vice President O'Connor and Industrial Commissioner Hartigan).

[10]   [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118.

[11]  [2019] QIRC 115 ('Paul Scott').

[12]  Ibid [13], citing House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499, 504-505 (Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ).

[13]  Workers' Compensation Regulator v Carr [2023] ICQ 001, [47] (Deputy President Merrell).

[14]  Citations omitted.

[15]  Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2021] QIRC 344.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 6)

  • MNC:

    [2023] QIRC 93

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Merrell DP

  • Date:

    24 Feb 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
House v R (1936) HCA 40
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1936) HCA 40
Cite 2 - (1936) HCA 40
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1936) 55 CLR 499
Cite 2 - (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mackay Regional Council v Queensland Services, Industrial Union of Employees (No 2) [2022] QIRC 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 11
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 11
Paul Scott v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 115
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 115
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 115
Cite 3 - [2019] QIRC 115
Pennington v Jamieson [2022] ICQ 22
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] ICQ 22
Cite 2 - [2022] ICQ 22
Quaedvlieg & Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 180 QGIG 1209
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2005) 180 QGIG 1209
Queensland Police Union of Employees v HS First Inc. [2023] QIRC 30
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 30
Cite 2 - [2023] QIRC 30
Quinlan v Rothwell[2002] 1 Qd R 647; [2001] QCA 176
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2002] 1 Qd R 647
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2021] QIRC 344
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 344
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 344
Cite 3 - [2021] QIRC 344
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2022] ICQ 25
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] ICQ 25
Cite 2 - [2022] ICQ 25
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 2) [2022] ICQ 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] ICQ 11
Cite 2 - [2022] ICQ 11
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 373
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 373
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 373
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 3) [2022] QIRC 437
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 437
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 437
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 438
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 438
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 438
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] HCA 28
Cite 2 - [2010] HCA 28
Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2010) 241 CLR 118
Cite 2 - (2010) 241 CLR 118
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Carr [2023] ICQ 1
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] ICQ 1
Cite 2 - [2023] ICQ 1

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 7) [2023] QIRC 1912 citations
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 8) [2023] QIRC 1924 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.