Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) - [2025] QIRC 174

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

Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2)[2025] QIRC 174

Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2)[2025] QIRC 174

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) and Ors (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 174

PARTIES:

Fraser, Eddie James

(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service)

(First Respondent)

AND

Harrison, Carolyn

(Second Respondent)

AND

Park, Ian

(Third Respondent)

AND

Davidson, Carrie

(Fourth Respondent)

CASE NO:

GP/2024/22

PROCEEDING:

General Protections – Application for leave to be legally represented

DELIVERED ON:

7 July 2025

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

Leave is granted for all Respondents to be legally represented pursuant to s 530(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), including by Counsel.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – GENERAL PROTECTIONS APPLICATION – application for leave to be legally represented – where the applicant objects to the respondents being legally represented – leave is granted for the respondents to be represented

LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 530

CASES:

Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v Scales & Anor (No 2) [2021] QIRC 428

Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v State of Queensland [2018] ICQ 008

Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 079

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    The First to Fourth Respondents have filed an application within this proceeding seeking an order pursuant to s 530(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ("IR Act") that the Respondents be granted leave to be legally represented by counsel and by Crown Law.
  2. [2]
    Mr Fraser objects to leave being granted to the Respondents to be legally represented.
  3. [3]
    Section 530 of the IR Act provides:

530  Legal representation

  1. (1A)
    This section applies in relation to proceedings other than a proceeding for a public service appeal.
  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. (a)
    for proceedings in the court—
  1. (i)
    all parties consent; or
  1. (ii)
    the court gives leave; or
  1. (iii)
    the proceedings are for the prosecution of an offence; or
  1. (b)
    for proceedings before the full bench—the full bench gives leave; or
  1. (c)
    for proceedings before the commission, other than the full bench, under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991—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
  1. (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
  1. (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.

…

  1. (5)
    For this section, a party or person is taken not to be represented by a lawyer if the lawyer is—
  1. (a)
    an employee or officer of the party or person; or
  1. (b)
    an employee or officer of an entity representing the party or person, if the entity is—
  1. (i)
    an organisation; or
  1. (ii)
    a State peak council; or
  1. (iii)
    another entity that only has members who are employers.

Submissions

  1. [4]
    On 19 November 2024, Mr Fraser filed his objection to the Respondents' application, advising he objects to:

the respondent's leave to represent all 9 Respondents by Crown Law and their agents for all parties to the proceeding it does not object to the Second and First and by extension the Fifth Respondent being represented by Crown Law given the proceedings to date.[1]

  1. [5]
    On 25 November 2024, Mr Fraser filed a Further Response to the Respondents' application for leave to be legally represented.
  2. [6]
    On 11 December 2024, the Respondents filed submissions in support of their application for leave to be legally represented.
  3. [7]
    On 7 February 2025, Mr Fraser made oral submissions in response to the Respondents' submissions to be legally represented.

Consideration

  1. [8]
    I consider this matter analogous to that of Corney v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2] and adopt Industrial Commissioner Hartigan's reasoning (as she then was) with respect to the First Respondent being represented by Crown Law and by counsel, as follows:
  1. [20]
    Ms Corney contends that it would be unfair if the Respondent were permitted to be legally represented.
  1. [21]
    The Respondent has indicated that it seeks to be legally represented by Crown Law and represented by counsel.
  1. [22]
    In respect of the representation by Crown Law, there is no requirement for the Respondent to seek leave of the Commission to be represented by Crown Law, by operation of s 530(5)(a) of the IR Act.
  1. [23]
    Section 530(5) provides that where a lawyer is an employee or officer of a party, that party may be represented by the lawyer and the restrictions in the preceding sub-sections do not apply.[3]
  1. [24]
    The lawyers engaged by Crown Law, a business unit of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, are employees of the State of Queensland and consequently, pursuant to s 530(5) of the IR Act, the lawyers at Crown Law are entitled to appear in the proceeding for the State of Queensland.
  1. [25]
    The Respondent also seeks leave to be legally represented in this proceeding.[4] Ms Corney objects to the Respondent being given leave to be legally represented in this proceeding. Ms Corney contends that it would be unfair if the Respondent were legally represented.
  1. [26]
    The discretion to grant leave for a party to be legally represented is outlined in s 530(4) of the IR Act. The Commission may grant leave if:
  1. (a)
    it would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter; or
  1. (b)
    it would be unfair not to allow the party or person to be represented because the party or person is unable to represent itself, himself or herself; or
  1. (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.
  1. [27]
    In Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 079 ("Wanninayake"), it was held that the decision by the Applicant not to engage legal representation, did not mean that the Respondent should be denied the opportunity to efficiently present its case through legal representation.

…

  1. [29]
    Further, in Winninayake, it was held that legal representation can assist the Commission in relation to matters involving points of law and skilful cross-examination of witnesses can only assist the Commission in determining the matters it has to decide. In Winninayake, Neate IC relevantly noted, stated:

… Competent legal representation of at least one of the parties can assist in ensuring that the proceedings remain focused on the real issues of fact and law, that the distinction between evidence and submissions is observed, that evidence is properly adduced (whether by examination in chief or cross examination and by the tendering of relevant documents), and that submissions are confined to the matters which the Commission must decide.

…

  1. [33]
    I note the Respondent's responsibility to act as a model litigant in accordance with the Model Litigant Principles. I am satisfied that this responsibility, together with the Commission's conduct of the proceedings, will ensure that no disadvantage is suffered by Ms Corney as a result of the Respondent being legally represented in the proceedings.
  1. [9]
    In this matter, Mr Fraser has elected to be self-represented, but himself is a lawyer. That decision made by Mr Fraser should not mean that the Respondents are denied legal representation in and of itself.
  2. [10]
    Mr Fraser's matter bears all the hallmarks of such "complex" matter, given the interlocutory applications filed so far. In these circumstances then, the Commission may be assisted by such representation to "remain focused on the real issues of fact and law".
  3. [11]
    With respect to the application brought by the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents, I adopt the reasoning by the Full Bench in Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v Scales & Anor (No 2),[5] as to why these individuals are granted leave to be represented by Crown Law and by private counsel (citations omitted):
  1. [20]
    The Union, by the principal applications, raises significant and complex issues concerning the interpretation of both the award and the Act. The respondents have similar (although not identical) interests and can be represented by one legal team.
  1. [21]
    While it might be that Mr Scales is indemnified against any liability consequent upon the applications, there is a significant risk of reputational damage. The Union is seeking to prove that he has intentionally breached an award governing employees of the State within the department that he manages. Reputation is a recognised interest worthy of protection. Given the complexities of the matter, the potential for reputational damage, and the lack of prejudice to the Union, it is appropriate for Mr Scales to be represented by Crown Law and by private counsel.
  1. [22]
    That being so, there is no sensible reason to deny the State that representation, it being through the same lawyers as will be retained by Mr Scales.

Conclusions

  1. [23]
    For the reasons we have given, the respondents ought to be legally represented by Crown Law instructing private counsel.
  1. [12]
    In adopting the foregoing reasons to the current circumstances, I believe that it is appropriate for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents to be represented by the same legal representation as the First Respondent.

Conclusion

  1. [13]
    In deciding this application, I have adopted the foregoing reasons of Industrial Commissioner Hartigan (as she then was) and I follow her determination that where the Respondents have sought leave to be legally represented by Crown Law, that also includes representation by counsel. I have also adopted the reasoning of the Full Bench in Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v Scales & Anor (No 2),[6] in extending the same legal representation to the Second to Fourth Respondents.
  2. [14]
    I order accordingly.

Orders

  1. Leave is granted for all Respondents to be legally represented pursuant to s 530(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), including by Counsel.

Footnotes

[1] Mr Fraser sought to add seven additional respondents to these proceedings by way of amended application. Only two of the proposed respondents (Mr Ian Park and Ms Carrie Davidson) were granted leave to be added to these proceedings.

[2] [2020] QIRC 219.

[3] Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v State of Queensland [2018] ICQ 008, [39].

[4] The Respondent intends to instruct counsel to appear in the proceeding.

[5] [2021] QIRC 428.

[6] Ibid.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) and Ors (No. 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 174

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    McLennan IC

  • Date:

    07 Jul 2025

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
Corney v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2020] QIRC 219
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 219
Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v Scales (No 2) [2021] QIRC 428
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 428
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 428
Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees v State of Queensland [2018] ICQ 8
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] ICQ 8
Cite 2 - [2018] ICQ 8
Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 79
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QIRC 79
Cite 2 - [2014] QIRC 79

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.