TB v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)
[2025] QIRC 140
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
- TB v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)[2025] QIRC 140
- Add to List
TB v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)[2025] QIRC 140
TB v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)[2025] QIRC 140
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | TB v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 140 |
PARTIES: | TB Appellant v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) Respondent |
CASE NO: | Anonymised |
PROCEEDING: | Application in existing proceedings – anonymising and suppression |
DELIVERED ON: | 7 May 2025 |
MEMBER: | Pratt IC |
HEARD AT: | On the papers |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – APPLICATION IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS – where appellant in substantive matter seeks suppression and anonymising orders – where substantive matter is an appeal against a decision denying the appellant's application for exemption from requirements to be vaccinated for COVID-19 – consideration of Practice Direction Number 3 of 2023 – Modification of a Document Before Publication and Practice Direction Number 4 of 2023 – Guideline for the Modification of a Document Before Publication – consideration of legal principles of suppression orders generally – where appellant claims risk of harm if suppression not granted – evidence of a history of stalking considered – held that the appellant's evidence does prove a risk of harm if application refused – application granted. |
LEGISLATION & OTHER INSTRUMENTS: | Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 451, s 580 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 97 Practice Direction Number 3 of 2023 – Modification of a Document Before Publication Practice Direction Number 4 of 2023 – Guideline for the Modification of a Document Before Publication Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 130 |
CASES: | Alderding v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 268 Algahamdi v State of Queensland (Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service) [2021] QIRC 223 AP v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2024] QIRC 170 Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263 Biddle v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 321 BR v State of Queensland [2022] QIRC 146 Dhanapathy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 17 Fischer v State of Queensland (Department of Seniors, Disability Services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) [2021] QIRC 332 J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] Qd R 10 LP v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 432 Lui v State of Queensland (Department of Energy and Public Works) [2023] QIRC 91 Maish v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 235 Mohr-Edgar v State of Queensland (Legal Aid Queensland) [2020] QIRC 136 Mutonhori v Mount Isa City Council [2024] QIRC 41 Neil v Lee (No. 2) [2024] QIRC 149 Rutter v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 54 Sane v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 143 Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) and Anor [2024] QIRC 20 Turay v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 169 Waite v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2024] QIRC 144 White v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 49 Wilson v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 329 |
Reasons for Decision
- [1]On 25 February 2025, I released the decision TB v State of Queensland (Queensland Health),[1] dealing with the substantive issues of the matter. Shortly after the decision was released to the parties, but prior to publication of that decision on the Supreme Court library website, the Appellant sought suppression orders to anonymise the decision and prohibit public access to and use of the Commission file in this matter. The Respondent does not oppose the application. However, I must still decide whether an exception to the principle of open justice arises that would warrant granting such suppression orders.
Issues
- [2]The issues in this application are twofold. First, whether the Commission should de-identify the Appellant in the abovementioned decision. Second, whether the Commission should order prohibition of public access to, and use of, the materials on file for the matter.
Relevant law
Legislation and practice directions
- [3]The Commission has broad powers to make "an order it considers appropriate" pursuant to s 451(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act'). The Commission may also "modify a document, before publication, in a way that does not affect the essence of the document" under r 97(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), if the Commission deems doing so to be in the public interest or for another reason the Commission considers appropriate. Practice Direction Number 3 of 2023 – Modification of a Document Before Publication largely reflects the position of r 97.
- [4]The Commission can also direct, under ss 580(5)(a) and (b) of the IR Act, that a report, or part of a report, of proceedings in an industrial cause not be published and that any evidence given, records tendered or things exhibited in proceedings for an industrial cause be withheld from release or search.
- [5]The importance of the principles of open justice are explained in Practice Direction Number 4 of 2023 – Guideline for the Modification of a Document Before Publication ('Practice Direction 4 of 2023'):[2]
Open justice is one of the fundamental principles of our justice system.[3] Generally, all hearings and records of proceedings before the Court or Commission are open to the public. The open justice principle may, on rare occasions, be limited where it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.
- [6]Practice Direction 4 of 2023 provides some examples of the type of situation in which an exercise of the discretionary power might be considered. One of those examples provided is "a public sector employee, within the meaning of the Public Sector Act 2022, where identification of the public sector employee may endanger the public sector employee".[4] Practice Direction 4 of 2023 also highlights that it is a matter for the Commission to decide if, and to what extent, a document is de-identified.[5]
Case law
- [7]
- The paramount consideration is the due administration of justice being open and transparent;
- Suppression may be warranted when failing to do so might frustrate the purpose of proceedings or cause a threat to national security;
- The exceptions to the principle of open justice are not based upon potential to deter parties from bringing proceedings, as legislatures are better equipped than courts to make informed decisions on such matters;
- No unnecessary restriction upon public access or publicity in respect of court proceedings is permissible;
- Different degrees of restraint are permissible for different purposes; and
- The embarrassment, even severe, that a party might experience due to the sensitive or personal nature of matters being litigated is not, on its own, a basis for an exception.
- [8]
- [9]An example of an appropriate exercise of the discretion is a situation where the risk of harm to the relevant person goes beyond mere embarrassment.[10] The Commission has refused applications seeking orders that were merely to avoid embarrassment or reputational damage, maintain privacy, also rejecting arguments that refusing to grant such orders might discourage potential litigants.[11] His Honour, Merrell DP, observed in Neil v Lee (No 2) ('Lee') that one of the primary consequences of the open justice principle was that "mere embarrassment, inconvenience or annoyance will not suffice to grant an application for suppression or non-publication".[12] Simply pointing to the possibility of domestic violence will not be sufficient unless there is evidence proving that there exists a real risk of harm.[13] In LP v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), the Commission granted suppression orders after finding on the facts of that case that refusing to do so posed a real risk of domestic violence.[14]
- [10]The Commission has ordered de-identification of a decision where the relevant person was the subject of ongoing criminal charges, concluding that not doing so in that case may have been at odds with the effect of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld).[15] A proven real risk of harm to the mental health of the relevant person will be sufficient so long as suppression does not detract from the essence of the decision.[16]
Submissions and evidence considered
- [11]The only evidence before me is the Appellant's statutory declaration and correspondence from police authorities. The Appellant in that statutory declaration sets out a history of being stalked by a person over the course of several years. The stalker, according to the Appellant, knew of the Appellant's address and the names of the Appellant's family members. The stalking was also of a sexual nature. The Appellant recounts several instances of the stalking of the Appellant and the Appellant's children.
- [12]As a result of this stalking, the Appellant changed email address and phone number, created a pseudo name for and changed settings on relevant social media, installed additional security at home including a panic alarm in the bedroom, and ultimately moved house. Those measures seem to have been somewhat successful in preventing the stalker from finding the Appellant and continuing the stalking. However, despite police intervention, including call tracing, the perpetrator was never found. So the Appellant argues that the stalking would likely resume should any identifying information be published, and that would have a severe and adverse impact on the Appellant’s health.
- [13]I acknowledge the paramountcy of the principle of open justice as his Honour, Merrell DP, highlighted in Lee. I am also guided by the need for specific and convincing evidence in these applications and that suppression orders are necessary and will only go so far as is necessary. I accept the Appellant's unchallenged evidence and submissions in this case. I am satisfied that the evidence proves that the Appellant has endured a long, harrowing, and harmful period of stalking. I also accept the submission that if the orders seeking de-identification and suppression are not granted, there is a real risk that publication of the Appellant's name and other identifying details such as the Appellant's place of work and the nature of the Appellant's profession, could very likely lead to harm occurring to the Appellant. That is because I am satisfied that the stalking would likely resume should identifying information of the Appellant be published and that the Appellant would likely suffer psychological harm, and not merely embarrassment or inconvenience, as a result. I am also satisfied that the anonymising of the Appellant in the substantive decision will not alter the substance of that decision.
- [14]For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the Appellant has demonstrated that this case falls within the exceptions to the principle of open justice on the basis that there is a likelihood of real harm being caused to the Appellant should the application be refused. I therefore grant the application.
Orders
- 1.The Appellant's Application in existing proceedings is granted.
- 2.The Appellant shall be de-identified in TB v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 056.
- 3.The contents of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission file in this matter are prohibited from search and publication.
Footnotes
[1] [2025] QIRC 056.
[2] Practice Direction Number 4 of 2023 – Guideline for the Modification of a Document Before Publication, [2] ('Practice Direction 4 of 2023').
[3] citing Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417.
[4] Practice Direction 4 of 2023 (n 2) [4](a)(ix).
[5] Practice Direction 4 of 2023 (n 2) [5].
[6] [1995] Qd R 10.
[7] Ibid [44].
[8] [2021] QIRC 263.
[9] Ibid [40]-[46].
[10] R v O'Dempsey (No 3) [2017] QSC 338 [24].
[11] Alderding v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 268; Sane v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 143; Lui v State of Queensland (Department of Energy and Public Works) [2023] QIRC 91; Dhanapathy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 017; Mohr-Edgar v State of Queensland (Legal Aid Queensland) [2020] QIRC 136; Algahamdi v State of Queensland (Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service) [2021] QIRC 223; Fischer v State of Queensland (Department of Seniors, Disability Services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) [2021] QIRC 332; Wilson v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 329; Rutter v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 054; Mutonhori v Mount Isa City Council [2024] QIRC 41; Turay v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 169; White v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 49; Biddle v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 321.
[12] Neil v Lee (No 2) [2024] QIRC 149, [22].
[13] Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) and Anor [2024] QIRC 20, [15]-[23].
[14] [2022] QIRC 432, [26]-[30].
[15] BR v State of Queensland [2022] QIRC 146, [15].
[16] Waite v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2024] QIRC 144, [18]-[27].