SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust
[2025] QIRC 14
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust[2025] QIRC 14
- Add to List
SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust[2025] QIRC 14
SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust[2025] QIRC 14
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust AND Others (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 014 |
PARTIES: | SP Complainant v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust First Respondent & RB Second Respondent |
CASE NO: | AD/2023/125 |
PROCEEDING: | Application to adjourn proceedings |
DELIVERED ON: | 3 December 2024 |
HEARING DATE: | 3 December 2024 |
MEMBER: | Pratt IC |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – APPLICATION TO ADJOURN PROCEEDINGS – where respondent filed application to adjourn proceedings – where matter has lengthy history – where respondent submits that proceedings should be adjourned because English is not his first language and he has trouble understanding legalese – held that English not being the respondent’s first language did not render the respondent unable to adequately engage in legal proceedings conducted in English – where respondent submits proceedings should be adjourned so he can obtain legal counsel so matter can run more efficiently – held that adjourning proceedings so the respondent can obtain legal counsel would result in proceedings being inefficient – consideration of principles around applications to adjourn proceedings – held no cogent reasons to grant application to adjourn proceedings – application for adjournment refused. |
CASES: | Dahdah v Platinum Distributors Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 65 Gabrielle v Abood (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 28 Perry v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2) [2024] ICQ 008 |
APPEARANCES: | Ms M Stone of counsel, instructed by Ms A Chester of Basic Rights Queensland for the Complainant. Mr T Polley counsel, instructed by Donnelly Law Group for the Respondent |
Reasons for Decision
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript
- [1]The Respondent seeks an adjournment. We are presently in day two of a two-day hearing that was listed some time ago. There is a lengthy history to the matter, as is evidenced by Ms Chester’s affidavit of 29 November 2024. A few, not all, of the highlights of that history are as follows.
- [2]The matter was filed in the Queensland Human Rights Commission in 2022 as a complaint. By 6 December 2023, it had made its way into this Commission and the Respondent failed to attend the conference by telephone. On 15 February 2024, there was a second conference organised and the Respondent also failed to attend that conference. By 26 April 2024, there was finally attendance by the Respondent before the Commission for a conciliation conference. However, the Complainant suffered a medical episode, and that could not proceed.
- [3]On the 10 May 2024, the Respondent received the statement of facts and contentions and affidavit evidence crystallising the Complainant’s case. That was slightly amended and provided to the Respondent on 31 May 2024. 10 June 2024 saw the issue of orders for further material to be filed by the Respondent, and 22 June 2024 saw the unusual step taken of personal service by way of a process server serving on the Respondent the amended statement of facts and contentions, amended affidavits, and the abovementioned 10 June 2024 orders.
- [4]On 9 July 2024, there was a further conciliation conference held by Commissioner Dwyer. On 27 July 2024, the matter was listed for mention on 8 August 2024. The Respondent did not attend that mention hearing. On 21 August 2024, the Commission issued orders listing the matter for a hearing on 2 and 3 December 2024.
- [5]On 1 October 2024, the Complainant further provided service of the Complainant’s materials on the Respondent. The Friday before our first day of hearing, the Respondent wrote to the Commission, effectively seeking to give his evidence by way of telephone and asking if his wife could represent him. However, at the opening of the proceedings, the Respondent attended and was acting for himself.
- [6]The application argues that English is a second language for the Respondent, and that some of the legalese is difficult for him to appreciate, as is the process. However, the Respondent has, several times yesterday, confirmed that he does not need an interpreter. Nor did he need an interpreter when he pleaded guilty to the common assault charges against the Complainant’s husband in the Magistrates Court on 28 July 2023. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that English not being the Respondent’s first language weighs in favour of granting the adjournment sought.
- [7]True it is that as a self-represented litigant, there is a degree of inefficiency. Yesterday was definitely slow going. However, the Respondent has, as many do in this jurisdiction, the right to act for himself, and he has exercised that right yesterday by attending and acting for himself. I reminded the Respondent yesterday, on a number of occasions, that self-representation does not entitle him to special privileges, however. The lack of efficiency and skill of a self-represented litigant is definitely, in this case, I agree, hard on the Complainant. However, the Complainant has made it very clear that she is prepared to proceed that way, rather than adjourn to some date in the future, as this application seeks.
- [8]Whilst legal representation is on the scene today, and I accept that the intention is to take a full brief and get the matter in hand, I am concerned that there is no guarantee that that will happen. It is simply not a matter that the solicitors and barrister acting for the Respondent today have any capacity to provide any undertaking to the Commission in regards to. Quite simply, the matter still rests in the Respondent’s hands, and I am concerned that we may find ourselves in the exactly the same situation in a month or two’s time.
- [9]There is a lengthy history that fills me with uncertainty that any improvement in efficiency will result if the adjournment sought is granted. The Respondent has, I find, had ample notice of the proceedings. He has had ample time to take advice and understand the nature of the situation. He has, in fact, been incarcerated earlier, and released on bail earlier this year for alleged acts that feature in this narrative. I cannot, therefore, accept that he was unable to appreciate the seriousness of the situation he is in, nor that he failed to appreciate this hearing was just that – a hearing, as opposed to yet another conference.
- [10]
No litigant has an entitlement to an adjournment for the obvious reason that the business of the court must be managed with the objective of efficient organisation in the interests of all litigants that come before the court.
- [11]
When matters are set down in this Court there is an expectation that they will be heard on the day on which they are set down. Matters are set down having regard to the demands of the Court, including other cases and litigants, and it is a significant and inefficient waste of Court resources where matters are required to be adjourned. That is not to say that in a sufficiently meritorious case, adjournment applications will not be entertained but they are typically only entertained and granted where there are cogent reasons for doing so.
- [12]His Honour, Merrell DP, adopted that approach, and I respectfully agree, and also adopt that approach. I am not satisfied that there are cogent reasons for the adjournment sought. I am not persuaded that the adjournment sought is anything other than a significant or inefficient waste of Commission resources. Accordingly, I refuse the application.
Order
- The application for an adjournment is refused.