SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust (No. 4)
[2025] QIRC 15
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 (No. 4)[2025] QIRC 15
- Add to List
SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust (No. 4)[2025] QIRC 15
SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust (No. 4)[2025] QIRC 15
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust AND Others (No. 4) [2025] QIRC 015 |
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: | 13 January 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | 13 January 2025 |
MEMBER: | Pratt IC |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – APPLICATION TO ADJOURN PROCEEDINGS – where respondent filed application to adjourn proceedings – where application filed for same reasons as last application in the same matter – where application raises no new grounds justifying adjournment – application for adjournment refused |
CASE: | SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust AND Others (No 3) [2025] QIRC 005 |
APPEARANCES: | Ms M Stone of counsel, instructed by Ms E Dalton of Basic Rights Queensland for the Complainant. The Respondent in person. |
Reasons for Decision
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript
- [1]The Respondent has again made an application for further adjournment. I am not inclined to grant the adjournment because on my assessment of this morning’s discourse between the parties and the bench, I am not satisfied that it raises anything new that has not already been considered in my decision of 18 December 2024, the reasons for I published today;[1] namely, whilst there was some discussion about health and capacity to understand language, the Respondent’s argument today is primarily that he wishes legal representation to act for him because he does not feel competent in acting for himself in the matter.
- [2]Based on the discussions I have had with the Respondent and his conduct in these proceedings so far, I am not satisfied that language is a barrier that is so significant it would warrant granting an adjournment so that the Respondent can consider and take advice and arrange for legal representation. The Respondent, on my assessment, has had more than enough opportunity to understand the Complainant’s case, to take legal advice, and to arrange for legal representation.
- [3]Today’s application, or perhaps I should say Friday afternoon’s application, is the same application as the last one for the same reason. Whilst I hear and appreciate the submissions of the Complainant, it is still up to the Respondent to persuade me that it is an appropriate use of the Commission’s resources to set the matter aside, having set it down last year for four days of hearing, starting today.
- [4]The Respondent has mentioned his health and the fact that he was admitted to hospital yesterday and discharged this morning. He has not provided me with any evidence as to the nature of his capacity. I am therefore unable to draw any conclusions that the Respondent is without sufficient capacity to conduct these proceedings. He seems to me, on my assessment, whilst somewhat stressed, no more so than any other self-represented litigant might be when faced with the enormity of the task of running their own piece of litigation. That, however, is something that this tribunal prides itself on, being very patient and careful with all self-represented litigants who might appear before it. As the Complainant’s counsel has pointed out, there have been a number of occasions already, and I can assure the parties there will be many more, where the Respondent has been given substantial leeway in running his case. That said, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to adjourn the proceedings. The matter will proceed. I order accordingly.
Order
- The application for adjournment is refused.
Footnotes
[1]SP v RB as Trustee for the R and R Family Trust AND Others (No 3) [2025] QIRC 005.