Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2024
  4. Hassan v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) - [2024] QIRC 167

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

Hassan v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services)[2024] QIRC 167

Hassan v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services)[2024] QIRC 167

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Hassan v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) [2024] QIRC 167

PARTIES:

Hassan, Julie

(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

GP/2023/32

PROCEEDING:

Application for legal representation

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2024

MEMBER:

Knight IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

Leave is granted for the Respondent to be legally represented pursuant to s 530(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – GENERAL PROTECTIONS – APPLICATION FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION – application for legal representation – where Respondent has applied for leave to be legally represented under s 530 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) – where Applicant opposes application – factors to be considered by the Commission in deciding whether to allow legal representation – circumstances of the case – leave granted for legal representation

LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

Queensland Law Society, Legal Profession (Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules) Notice 2012 (at 1 June 2012) rr 3, 4, 10, 11

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 3, 529, 530, 536, 545

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld)

Recruitment and Selection Directive 07/23

CASES:

Applicant v Respondent [2014] FWC 2860

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541

Fitzgerald v Woolworths Ltd (2017) 270 IR 128

NOM v DPP (2012) 38 VR 618

Pierres v Andrew Herzfeld Pty Ltd [2000] QIRC 11

R v Trebilco; Ex Parte F. S. Faulkner & Sons Ltd (1936) 56 CLR 20

R v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland ex parte Heffernan [1979] Qd R 563

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6

Robertson v McDonald's Australia Ltd (No 2) [2023] ICQ 028

State of Queensland (Department of Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118

State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume [2022] ICQ 001

The Council of the Qld Law Society Inc v Wright [2001] QCA 58

Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2018] QIRC 133

Warrell v Walton (2013) 233 IR 335

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    On 4 December 2023, Ms Julie Hassan filed an amended general protections application ('the Amended Application') in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission pursuant to ch 8 pt 1 div 3 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act').
  2. [2]
    Within the Amended Application, Ms Hassan alleges adverse action under the IR Act, promissory estoppel, misleading and deceptive conduct, breaches of the Recruitment and Selection Directive 07/23 under the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act') and bullying by the State of Queensland.
  3. [3]
    The State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) ('QFES') ('the Respondent') has subsequently filed an application in existing proceedings, seeking leave to be legally represented.[1]
  4. [4]
    The Applicant, Ms Hassan objects to QFES being granted leave to be legally represented.
  5. [5]
    The issue for determination is whether leave should be granted for QFES to be legally represented in the proceedings.

The Legislative Scheme

  1. [6]
    Section 529 of the IR Act contains provisions dealing with the representation of parties generally, namely:
  1. 529Representation of parties generally
  1. (1)
    A party to proceedings, or a person ordered or permitted to appear or to be represented in the proceedings, may be represented in the proceedings by—
  1. (a)
    a lawyer, only in accordance with section 530; or
  2. (b)
    an employee or officer of an organisation appointed in writing as the agent of the party or person; or
  3. (c)
    if the party or person is an organisation—an employee, officer or member of the organisation; or
  4. (d)
    if the party or person is an employer—an employee or officer of the employer; or
  5. (e)
    another person appointed in writing as the agent of the party or person, only with the leave of the industrial tribunal conducting the proceedings.

…

  1. (4)
    In this section—

industrial tribunal means the Court of Appeal, court, full bench or commission or an Industrial Magistrates Court.

proceedings—

  1. (a)
    means proceedings under this Act or another Act being conducted by the court, the commission, an Industrial Magistrates Court or the registrar; and
  2. (b)
    includes conciliation being conducted under part 3, division 4 or part 5, division 5A by a conciliator.[2]
  1. [7]
    Section 530 of the IR Act relevantly provides:
  1. 530Legal representation
  1. (1)
    A party to proceedings, or person ordered or permitted to appear or to be represented in the proceedings, may be represented by a lawyer only if—

...

  1. (e)
    for other proceedings before the commission, other than the full bench—
  1. (i)
    all parties consent; or
  2. (ii)
    for a proceeding relating to a matter under a relevant provision—the commission gives leave; or

...

  1. (4)
    An industrial tribunal may give leave under subsection (1) only if—
  1. (a)
    it would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter; or
  2. (b)
    it would be unfair not to allow the party or person to be represented because the party or person is unable to represent the party’s or person’s interests in the proceedings; or
  3. (c)
    it would be unfair not to allow the party or person to be represented having regard to fairness between the party or person, and other parties or persons in the proceedings.[3]

Examples of when it may be unfair not to allow a party or person to be represented by a lawyer—

  • a party is a small business and has no specialist human resources staff, while the other party is represented by an officer or employee of an industrial organisation or another person with experience in industrial relations advocacy
  • a person is from a non-English speaking background or has difficulty reading or writing
  1. (7)
    In this section—

...

relevant provision, for a proceeding before the commission other than the full bench, means—

  1. (a)
    chapter 8;[4]

Submissions

  1. [8]
    Ms Hassan submits the resources available to departments such as QFES when compared to her own, observing that she is at an unfair disadvantage because she has limited industrial relations knowledge and is unable to afford legal representation.[5]
  2. [9]
    While QFES acknowledges Ms Hassan is not an expert in industrial relations, the agency argues the involvement of external legal representation will not only ensure that relations between QFES and existing employees who are called as witnesses during the proceedings will be preserved,[6] but also assist the Commission by narrowing the scope of issues to be determined, preparing concise evidence and submissions, and aiding the Commission in identifying the relevant legal principles.[7]
  3. [10]
    Ms Hassan maintains the department has access to uncapped taxpayer funds to fund external legal representation resulting in an unfair advantage to QFES.[8]
  4. [11]
    In response, QFES points to the model litigant principles that require the costs of litigation to be minimised.[9]
  5. [12]
    Ms Hassan further submits that her current levels of anxiety will be heightened in the event QFES is granted leave to be represented.[10]
  6. [13]
    While observing that the potential impact on Ms Hassan's mental health is arguably not a relevant consideration in the application of s 530(4) of the IR Act,[11] QFES contends that even if this is not the case that leave should be granted in circumstances where it will assist the Commission in ensuring the proceedings are focused on the real issues of fact and law, along with the evidence and submissions directly relevant to the factors the Commission must consider in the substantive proceedings. Further, that maximising efficiency during the proceedings will minimise any potential negative impacts on Ms Hassan's mental health.[12]
  7. [14]
    Ms Hassan contends that granting leave to executive-level decision-makers discriminates against lower-ranking employees within the department. In response, QFES emphasises that the application for legal representation concerns the State of Queensland and not individual decision-makers engaged by QFES.[13]
  8. [15]
    Ms Hassan further contends a conflict of interest may arise in the event Holding Redlich is appointed as the legal representative for QFES in circumstances where her role at QFES requires interaction and communication with external legal representatives, including Holding Redlich which undertakes duties for approximately one-third of her projects.[14]
  9. [16]
    QFES maintains that no conflict will arise in circumstances where:
  1. (a)
    Holding Redlich has not acted for the Applicant in any matter;
  2. (b)
    In acting for the Respondent in Property Matters, there has been no communication between the Applicant and the Holding Redlich solicitors engaged to act in the Proceedings;
  3. (c)
    The Holding Redlich solicitors engaged in the Property Matters have no involvement in the proceedings;
  4. (d)
    The Holding Redlich solicitors engaged to act for the Respondent in the Proceedings have no involvement in the Property Matters.[15]
  1. [17]
    Under the heading 'ORDERS SOUGHT', Ms Hassan has identified the following:
  1. (a)
    To balance fairness in this matter:
  • The Respondent to be refused external legal representation;

Or;

  • The Respondent, in its States powers and position, provide fair and equal opportunity to all levels of its employees and provide financial aid to the Applicant to be legally represented, and pay the Applicant legal fees for the start to end of the whole proceedings.[16]
  1. [18]
    QFES does not agree to the orders Ms Hassan has sought; instead, it notes that Ms Hassan commenced these proceedings on her own initiative and the proceedings do not form part of her employment.[17]

Should QFES be granted leave to be legally represented?

  1. [19]
    The construction of s 530(4)(a) of the IR Act and the circumstances in which a party may be granted leave to be represented in proceedings by a lawyer in this Commission were helpfully considered by Deputy President Merrell in State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume ('Hume'),[18] when his Honour observed:
  1. [34]
    First, the purpose of the combined effect of s 530(1)(a)(ii) and s 530(4) of the IR Act is to confer on the Court discretion to give leave, for a party or person ordered or permitted to appear or to be represented in proceedings before it, to be represented by a lawyer if the Court forms one of the value judgments in s 530(4)(a) to (c).
  2. [35]
    Secondly, it is clear that the power conferred on the Court is discretionary and not obligatory. The use of the verb 'may' in s 530(4) of the IR Act logically imports an element of discretion on the part of the Court. The discretionary character is not displaced by the mandatory requirement that the Court must form a value judgment about whether, relevantly to the present case, the giving of the leave sought would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter. That is to say, if the Court forms that value judgment, then there is still a discretion to be exercised. The formation of one of the value judgments in s 530(4)(a) to (c) does not dictate that the discretion is automatically exercised in favour of an applicant seeking leave to be represented by a lawyer.
  3. [36]
    Thirdly, s 530(4)(a) of the IR Act refers to the question of whether leave would enable '… the proceedings' to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of '… the matter.'

...

  1. [39]
    By contrast, s 530(4)(a) of the IR Act then refers to the complexity of  '… the matter.' Because of the different phrase used, my opinion is that '… the matter' is a reference to the particular controversy or controversies requiring determination by the industrial tribunal so as to make a decision about the application for relief or, put another way, to determine the proceedings.
  2. [40]
    Fourthly, s 530(4)(a) of the IR Act is otherwise to be construed according to the ordinary meaning of the words used in that provision. A value judgment has to be formed as to whether or not the giving of leave to a party or person to be represented by a lawyer would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter. The matter does not have to be complex, or compared to other matters that have or may become before the Court, be more complex; but regard must be had to the complexity of the matter.
  3. [41]
    Further, in having regard to that complexity, a judgment has to be formed as to whether allowing the party or person to be represented by a lawyer would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently. Section 530(4) of the IR Act is relevantly concerned with whether or not discretion should be exercised in favour of a party seeking leave to be represented by a lawyer in proceedings before the Court. As a consequence, my opinion is that the adverb 'efficiently', in the context that it is used in s 530(4)(a) of the IR Act, is concerned with, at least, timeliness.
  4. [42]
    Fifthly, if the Court forms one of the value judgments in s 530(4)(a) to (c) of the IR Act, s 530 is otherwise silent as to the factors the Court must consider in terms of exercising the discretion. In such a case, the relevant considerations must be determined from the scope and object of the provision conferring the discretion.
  5. [43]
    The object of s 530 of the IR Act is to set out the circumstances by which a party or person may be represented in the proceedings by a lawyer. The circumstances described in s 530(4), which enliven the discretion of the Court to give leave, concern efficiency in the conduct of the proceedings. The circumstances also concern fairness, having regard to the particular circumstances of the person or party seeking leave to be represented by a lawyer, and also fairness having regard to the other parties or persons in the proceedings.[19]
  1. [20]
    Similarly, in State of Queensland (Department of Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson ('Dawson'),[20] His Honour, Vice President O'Connor, identified several instructive authorities in respect of the legal representation and the efficient conduct of litigation, noting:
  1. [22]
    The involvement of Counsel in the efficient conduct of litigation was expressed in Application by R.A.v, where Deputy President Sams wrote:
  1. [18]
    Invariably, I have found the skills and expertise of an experienced industrial legal practitioner will be more of a help than a hindrance, particularly bearing in mind a legal practitioner's professional obligations to the Commission and the Courts. In this respect, I refer to the comments of Mason CJ in Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543; [1988] HCA 52 :
  1. [A]
    barrister's duty to the court epitomizes the fact that the course of litigation depends on the exercise by counsel of an independent discretion or judgment in the conduct and management of a case in which he has an eye, not only to his client’s success, but also to the speedy and efficient administration of justice. In selecting and limiting the number of witnesses to be called, in deciding what questions will be asked in cross-examination, what topics will be covered in address and what points of law will be raised, counsel exercises an independent judgment so that the time of the court is not taken up unnecessarily, notwithstanding that the client may wish to chase every rabbit down its burrow. The administration of justice in our adversarial system depends in very large measure on the faithful exercise by barristers of this independent judgment in the conduct and management of the case.
  1. [19]
    More recently, a Full Bench of the Commission in E. Allen v Fluor Construction Services Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 174 said at para [48]:

A lawyer's duty to the Commission is paramount and supercedes a lawyer's duties to their client. A grant of permission to appear pursuant to s 596(1) of the Act is based upon a presumption that the representative to whom leave is granted will conduct themselves with probity, candour and honesty. The duty of advocates in that regard has been long recognised by the Commission [footnotes omitted].

  1. [20]
    Informality is one thing, but there is still a statutory foundation which must be observed in the exercise of all the Commission's powers and functions. In my experience, the prospects of a case being run more efficiently and focused on the relevant issues to be determined, is more likely where competent legal representation is involved. I agree with what was said by the Full Bench in Priestley:
  1. [13]
    In our view DPS has established that representation would assist DPS to bring the best case possible. Representation by persons experienced in the relevant jurisdiction will be of undoubted assistance in this regard. We are satisfied that the particular counsel has the capacity to assist the DPS and assist the Tribunal in performing its functions.[21]

Efficiency and complexity

  1. [21]
    The Commission must consider whether the giving of leave to a party or person to be represented by a lawyer would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity.[22]
  2. [22]
    In determining whether a matter is complex, regard need not be had to conducting a comparison with other proceedings, but rather, regard should be had to the complexity of the issues being determined.
  3. [23]
    QFES submits that the determination of the Amended Application involves both legal and factual complexity. It is argued the proceedings will be assisted by legal representation, particularly when one has regard to the nature of the claims and the broad legal principles that must be considered; for example, the General Protection provisions under the IR Act, promissory estoppel principles, misleading and deceptive conduct and the recruitment provisions under the PS Act.
  4. [24]
    It also appears there may be certain aspects of Ms Hassan's amended application that may fall outside the Commission's jurisdiction.
  5. [25]
    Finally, it is not in contention that there are factual matters in dispute between the parties that are central to the Amended Application,[23] namely what agreement was reached in respect of pay increases sought by Ms Hassan and whether information was withheld from Ms Hassan or grievances were adequately managed by QFES.
  6. [26]
    It seems to me therefore, that the issues of law and facts associated with the substantive matter are complex. The broadness of the claims within the amended application and the lack of particularity in respect of the provisions Ms Hassan relies on in support of several of those claims further adds to the complexity, lending weight to exercising the discretion to permit legal representation.
  7. [27]
    I consider there is some force to the QFES's submissions that the granting of legal representation will assist in ensuring the proceedings remain focused on relevant issues of fact and law and that both the evidence and submissions will be directed towards the issues the Commission must decide.

Fairness

  1. [28]
    Ms Hassan's submissions are directed primarily to the issue of fairness. The basis of her argument in respect of the disadvantage she will suffer in the event leave is granted for QFES to be legally represented arises from concerns that include:
  • The potential for her anxiety levels to increase resulting in a deterioration in her mental health;
  • Ms Hassan's limited industrial relations knowledge and inability to afford legal representation;
  • QFES's access to uncapped funds that enables access to external legal representation; and
  • discrimination against lower-ranking employees in the department.

Mental Health Concerns

  1. [29]
    As observed by His Honour, Vice President O'Connor, in Dawson,[24] '… fairness is not an abstract concept. In the present circumstances, the Commission's aim in the conduct of these proceedings is to avoid practical injustice.'
  2. [30]
    In the absence of an affidavit, medical reports or other materials from Ms Hassan detailing the nature of her mental health condition and how a decision to grant leave to QFES to be legally represented will impact the fairness between the parties, I am unable to determine whether such a factor weighs in favour of not granting leave.
  3. [31]
    In any event, having previously accepted that the substantive proceedings will not be devoid of complexity both in respect of issues of law and fact, I consider there is some force to the QFES's submissions that legal representation may well assist both the Commission and Ms Hassan, including her mental health, by ensuring the proceedings are conducted efficiently, with a focus on the real issues of fact and law, that evidence is properly adduced and that submissions are limited to the issues that the Commission must determine.

Alleged Discrimination

  1. [32]
    Ms Hassan maintains that the granting of external legal representation for QFES would amount to discrimination for lower-ranking employees in circumstances where executive-level delegated decision makers will be afforded legal representation.[25]
  2. [33]
    In the absence of further details as to how the granting of leave for QFES to be legally represented will amount to discrimination in the way described by Ms Hassan and in accordance with the relevant legislative principles and how this will impact the fairness between the parties, I do not consider such a factor weighs in favour of not granting leave.
  3. [34]
    In any event, it seems that Ms Hassan may have misconstrued the identity of the party in whose favour the order for legal representation will be made, if it is granted by the Commission. That is, an order under s 530(1)(e) of the IR Act, would not in this matter, directly grant legal representation to individual decision-makers employed by QFES.

Conflict of Interest

  1. [35]
    Ms Hassan contends it would be unfair to grant leave for QFES to be legally represented because Holding Redlich has a conflict of interest given it provides services on approximately one-third of the projects undertaken by Ms Hassan, in her role at QFES.[26]
  2. [36]
    Section 530(1)(e) of the IR Act provides that whether leave is granted for legal representation is an exercise of discretion. The Commission cannot confine a litigant to a subset of solicitors, nor exclude a particular law firm. Once leave is granted, the choice of legal representation sits with the party granted leave.
  3. [37]
    In any event, the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules[27] prescribe relevant standards for legal practitioners and firms while interacting with the court and clients and when identifying where a conflict may arise.[28]
  4. [38]
    Rule 3 provides that a solicitor's duty to the court and administration of justice is paramount.[29] The same rule encompasses a duty of disclosure to the court.[30] Rules 10 and 11 concern conflicts concerning former and existing clients.[31]
  5. [39]
    Certainly, it is not in contention that Holding Redlich has been engaged by the Respondent to provide legal services in relation to matters involving QFES property and acquisitions and on occasion has communicated with Ms Hassan in her capacity as an employee of the Respondent.
  6. [40]
    However, having regard to the materials filed with the Commission, it is also the case that Holding Redlich has not personally acted for Ms Hassan and that the solicitors engaged in QFES property matters are not involved in the substantive matter. Similarly, there appears to be no cross-over between the solicitors engaged to act for QFES in the proceedings and any ongoing property matters.
  7. [41]
    For these reasons, I am not persuaded the representation of QFES by Holding Redlich in property matters impacts the fairness between the parties in this proceeding to the extent that it would weigh in favour of not granting leave for QFES to be legally represented.

Ms Hassan's lack of IR knowledge, inability to afford legal representation and QFES's uncapped funding

  1. [42]
    Ms Hassan contends she is being placed in an unfair position given the limitations that arise because of her limited knowledge of industrial relations, an inability to afford legal representation and a view that QFES has access to uncapped funding enabling access to expert legal representation.
  2. [43]
    Certainly, when considered together, I can appreciate why Ms Hassan might feel somewhat overwhelmed in anticipation of representing herself in the substantive proceedings, particularly where she will need to demonstrate, among other things, that she suffered adverse action as a consequence of exercising a workplace right.
  3. [44]
    However, as was observed by Neate IC held in Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines):

The fact that one party, either by choice of circumstances, is not represented by a lawyer is no reason to deny the other party or parties of legal representation, particularly in significant and potentially complex cases. That point is strengthened when, as in this case, the respondent party is meant to act as a model litigant in accordance with Model Litigant Principles.

To the extent that a self-represented party considers it likely that they will be at some disadvantage in proceedings where the other party is, or parties are, represented by lawyers, the self-represented party should proceed on the basis that the Commission will attempt to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly within the time allotted for the hearing.[32]

  1. [45]
    Ms Hassan can hopefully draw some comfort from the existence of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Rules') and the obligation of the Commission to balance fairness between the parties through effective courtroom management and ensuring adherence to the Rules.
  2. [46]
    Moreover, as observed by His Honour, Vice President O'Connor, in Dawson:
  1. [26]
    The Respondent is bound by the model litigant principles which require, amongst other things, that:
  1. (a)
    the power of the State be used for a public good and in the public interest; and
  2. (b)
    the principles of fairness are adhered to in the conduct of all litigation.[33]
  1. [47]
    I further note that the model litigant principles require QFES to ensure the costs of litigation are kept to a minimum and accept the argument that in ensuring the matter is run efficiently by external legal representation, the costs of defending the proceedings will likely be minimised.
  2. [48]
    I am satisfied these obligations, in concert with the existence of the Australian Solicitor's Conduct Rules, the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 and effective courtroom management will address many of the concerns raised by Ms Hassan in respect of fairness.

Costs

  1. [49]
    There is one additional matter to consider. In the event leave is granted to QFES to be legally represented, Ms Hassan, with her own submissions, has sought an Order from the Commission that the Respondent provide financial aid and 'pay for the [sic] Applicant legal fees for the start to end of the whole proceedings'.[34]
  2. [50]
    QFES does not agree to the Order that is sought.
  3. [51]
    I note that costs can be ordered by the Commission in certain circumstances; for example, retrospectively pursuant to s 545(2)(a) of the IR Act once a proceeding has been determined by the Commission, or where directed following interlocutory proceedings initiated under s 536.
  4. [52]
    The powers and basis upon which Ms Hassan relies for the Commission to make such an order are not addressed within her submissions or any other application before the Commission.
  5. [53]
    In any event, an Order from the Commission to QFES to pay Ms Hassan's legals costs is beyond the scope of the provisions contained within s 529 and s 530 of the IR Act and the issue I am required to determine here.

Conclusion

  1. [54]
    For the above reasons, I consider the discretion to grant leave to QFES to be represented by an external lawyer is enlivened.
  2. [55]
    As observed by his Honour, VP O'Connor in Dawson,[35] 'the Commission has  responsibility to ensure that its practice and procedure are adhered to in order to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to the law as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible'. Such an approach is also in alignment with one of the primary purposes of the IR Act, namely the deliver high quality services, economic prosperity and social justice for Queenslanders.[36]
  3. [56]
    For the reason set out at [19] to [53] I grant leave to QFES to be represented by a lawyer in these proceedings.

Orders

  1. [57]
    I make the following orders:
  1. 1.Pursuant to s 530(1)(e)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the Respondent is granted leave to be represented by a lawyer for this proceeding.

Footnotes

[1] Form 101 – Application for leave to be represented by a lawyer in certain proceedings filed by the QFES on 22 February 2024.

[2] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 529.

[3] Emphasis added.

[4] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 530.

[5] Ms Hassan's submissions filed on 25 March 2024 [3](c).

[6]QFES's response submissions filed on 15 April 2024 [7]–[8]; State of Queensland (Department of Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118 [17].

[7] Affidavit deposed by Ms J Hamilton filed by the QFES on 22 February 2024 [8].

[8] Ms Hassan's submissions filed on 25 March 2024 [3](f).

[9] QFES's response submissions filed on 15 April 2024 [12].

[10] Ibid [7]–[8].

[11] Ibid [9].

[12] Ibid [10]–[11].

[13] Ibid [13]–[15].

[14] Ms Hassan's submissions filed on 25 March 2024 [3](h) – (j).

[15] QFES's response submissions filed on 15 April 2024 [18].

[16] Ms Hassan's submissions filed on 25 March 2024 4 – 5.

[17] QFES's response submissions filed on 15 April 2024 [19]–[21].

[18] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume [2022] ICQ 001.

[19] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume [2022] ICQ 001 citing Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, R v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland ex parte Heffernan [1979] Qd R 563, NOM v DPP (2012) 38 VR 618, Warrell v Walton (2013) 233 IR 335, Fitzgerald v Woolworths Ltd (2017) 270 IR 128, and R v Trebilco; Ex Parte F. S. Faulkner & Sons Ltd (1936) 56 CLR 20.

[20] State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118.

[21] Ibid citing Applicant v Respondent [2014] FWC 2860.

[22] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 530(4); State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume [2022] ICQ 001.

[23] Ms Hassan's Amended Form 2 – General Application to Queensland Industrial Relations Commission filed 4 December 2024.

[24] State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118 citing Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6, [37]. 

[25] Ms Hassan's Submissions filed 25 March 2024, [3](g).

[26] Ms Hassan's Submissions filed 25 March 2024, [3](i).

[27] Queensland Law Society, Legal Profession (Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules) Notice 2012 (at 1 June 2012).

[28] Ibid rr 3, 4, 10, 11.

[29] Ibid r 3.

[30] The Council of the Qld Law Society Inc v Wright [2001] QCA 58 [67].

[31] Queensland Law Society, Legal Profession (Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules) Notice 2012 (at 1 June 2012) rr 10 - 11.

[32] Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2018] QIRC 133 6.

[33] State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118 [26].

[34] Ms Hassan's Submissions filed 25 March 2024.

[35] State of Queensland (Department of Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118

[36] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 3.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Hassan v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Hassan v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services)

  • MNC:

    [2024] QIRC 167

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Knight IC

  • Date:

    11 Jul 2024

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
Allen and Ors v Fluor Construction Services Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 174
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] FWCFB 174
Applicant v Respondent [2014] FWC 2860
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] FWC 2860
Cite 2 - [2014] FWC 2860
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1996) 186 CLR 541
Cite 2 - (1996) 186 CLR 541
Fitzgerald v Woolworths Ltd (2017) 270 IR 128
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2017) 270 IR 128
Cite 2 - (2017) 270 IR 128
Giannarelli & Shulkes v Wraith [1988] HCA 52
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1988] HCA 52
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1988) 165 CLR 543
NOM v Director of Public Prosecutions (2012) 38 VR 618
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2012) 38 VR 618
Cite 2 - (2012) 38 VR 618
Pierres v Andrew Herzfeld Pty Ltd [2000] QIRC 11
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] QIRC 11
R v Workers Compensation Board; ex parte Heffernan [1979] Qd R 563
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1979] Qd R 563
Cite 2 - [1979] Qd R 563
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] HCA 6
Cite 2 - [2003] HCA 6
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 2) [2023] ICQ 28
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] ICQ 28
State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118
6 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 118
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 118
Cite 3 - [2021] QIRC 118
Cite 4 - [2021] QIRC 118
Cite 5 - [2021] QIRC 118
Cite 6 - [2021] QIRC 118
State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume [2022] ICQ 1
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] ICQ 1
Cite 2 - [2022] ICQ 1
Cite 3 - [2022] ICQ 1
Cite 4 - [2022] ICQ 1
The Council of the Qld Law Society Inc v Wright [2001] QCA 58
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QCA 58
Cite 2 - [2001] QCA 58
The King v Treblico; Ex parte F. S. Falkiner & Sons Ltd. (1936) 56 CLR 20
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1936) 56 CLR 20
Cite 2 - (1936) 56 CLR 20
Wanninayake v Queensland [2018] QIRC 133
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QIRC 133
Cite 2 - [2018] QIRC 133
Warrell v Walton (2013) 233 IR 335
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2013) 233 IR 335
Cite 2 - (2013) 233 IR 335

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
National College of Australia v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 951 citation
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.