Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 203

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

State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2025] QIRC 203

State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2025] QIRC 203

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Anor [2025] QIRC 203

PARTIES:

State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service)

(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(First Respondent)

AND

Dominic Louis Safi

(Second Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2024/192

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2025

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

HEARING DATE:

O'Neill IC

Brisbane

7 July 2025

ORDERS:

The orders contained in paragraph [87] of these reasons for decision.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – Application in existing proceedings for disclosure – where the Second Respondent has made an application for disclosure of documents – where the Appellant objects to  disclosure on the ground that the evidence sought is not relevant – where the Second Respondent seeks a decision regarding the disclosure request – consideration of relevance – application allowed in part.

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld)

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 553

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 rr 41, 46

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 211, 223

CASES:

Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd [2011] QSC 183

CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) (2011) 212 IR 313

Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 002

Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55

Huyghe v State of Queensland (Mackay Hospital and Health Service) [2022] QIRC 014

Kelsey v Logan City Council & Ors (No. 6) [2018] QIRC 115

Menkens v Wintour [2007] 2 Qd R 40

Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276

Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 025

Niceforo v Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance Company & Ors [2023] QSC 282

Nicholls v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety) [2024] QIRC 171

Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 3) [2025] QIRC 189

Quenchy Crusta Sales Pty Ltd v Logi-Tech Pty Ltd (2002) 223 LSJS 266

Robson v Reb Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102

Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (In Liquidation) v Arthur Andersen & Co (No 5) [2001] SASC 335

Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors; Santos Ltd & Ors v Xstrata Queensland Ltd [2005] QSC 323

APPEARANCES:

Mr SA McLeod KC of counsel directly instructed for the Appellant.

Mr G Clark of the Workers' Compensation Regulator for the First Respondent.

Mr SP Sweeney of Slater & Gordon Lawyers for the Second Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    The substantive appeal is an appeal brought by the Appellant, Queensland Police Service ('QPS'), against the Worker's Compensation Regulator's ('First Respondent') decision to accept the claim of Queensland Police Service employee Dominic Safi ('Second Respondent') for workers' compensation benefits.
  1. [2]
    The Second Respondent was employed by the QPS as a sworn police officer. From 2009 to 2020 the Second Respondent worked in the Logan District and worked from the Logan Central Police Station.
  1. [3]
    During his period of service at the Logan Central Police Station ('the Station') the Second Respondent alleges that he was exposed to mould that had been present at the Station for a number of years.
  1. [4]
    In 2023 the Second Respondent was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease.
  1. [5]
    In January 2024, the Second Respondent lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland ('WorkCover') with the relevant injury stated to be 'Parkinson's Disease' sustained due to exposure to mould and mycotoxins during his employment with QPS.
  1. [6]
    By reasons for decision dated 22 March 2024[1], WorkCover rejected the Second Respondent's application for compensation and determined that it was not satisfied that the Second Respondent had sustained an 'injury' within the meaning of section 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the Act').
  1. [7]
    On 5 June 2024 the Second Respondent lodged an application for review with the First Respondent which was supported by additional medical reports and medical studies and publications.
  1. [8]
    By reasons for decision dated 5 September 2024, the First Respondent's review unit set aside WorkCover's rejection of the application for compensation and substituted a decision to accept the claim. In reaching that finding the review officer was satisfied that the Second Respondent's injury arose out of the Second Respondent's employment with QPS and that the employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury.
  1. [9]
    On 1 October 2024, QPS lodged a Notice of Appeal[2] in relation to the First Respondent's review decision.
  1. [10]
    On 4 November 2024, QPS served a List of Documents on the First and Second Respondents which listed documents relating only to the lodgement of the Second Respondent's claim, the review, service/leave reports, mould investigation reports dated 25 July 2018 and February 2023 and associated correspondence regarding mould from January, February and March 2023.[3]
  1. [11]
    On 4 November 2024, the Second Respondent's solicitor, Mr Sean Sweeney from Slater & Gordon Lawyers emailed QPS raising concerns about inadequate disclosure by QPS.[4]
  1. [12]
    On 12 December 2024 QPS served its Statement of Facts and Contentions on the First and Second Respondents. In that document QPS disputed the 'extent and duration of Mr Safi's occupational mould exposure'.[5]
  1. [13]
    Mr Sweeney raised further concerns regarding the adequacy of QPS' disclosure on 12 December 2024, 9 April 2025 and 14 April 2025.[6]
  1. [14]
    On 22 May 2025, the Second Respondent filed a Form 4 – Application in existing proceedings in which the Second Respondent seeks further and better disclosure by QPS pursuant to rules 41(2)(o) and 46(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the IRT Rules') and/or Rule 211 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 ('the UCPR').
  1. [15]
    The Second Respondent identified the following categories of documents which he believed to be relevant, and that QPS had failed to disclose:
  1. All documentation relating to mould at the Logan Station during the period 12 June 2009 and 19 July 2020 ("the relevant period"), including any requests for the July 2018 Occupational Hygiene Survey and correspondence regarding the need for that survey;
  2. Notification forms, statements, samples, records, investigative reports, expert reports and internal correspondence relating to mould at any police stations at which Mr Safi worked during the relevant period;
  3. Reports, invoices, internal correspondence and other documentation relating to mould testing or remediation for all police stations at which Mr Safi worked during the relevant period;
  4. Any reports, scientific studies, publications, media articles or other documents in the possession of the QPS relating to the dangers associated with mould, mould generally and mould at QPS police stations;
  5. Claim forms, complaints, injury or incident notification forms, statements, notes or correspondence (including correspondence with any QPS workers, worker representatives, or Union) relating to mould at the Logan Station or any other OPS police station during the relevant period; and
  6. Claim forms, injury or incident notification forms, statements, notes or internal correspondence relating to any claims, potential claims, inquests or potential inquests involving the QPS's workers, contractors or visitors in respect of mould related injuries or deaths alleged to be linked to the Logan Station or other OPS police stations.
  1. [16]
    The Appellant opposes the application.
  2. [17]
    For the reasons that follow, the application is allowed in part.

Proceedings in the Commission

  1. [18]
    The Commission issued a directions order on 28 May 2025 which required the parties to file and serve written submissions relating to their respective positions regarding the application for disclosure. The application was listed for hearing on 27 June 2025.
  2. [19]
    In compliance with the directions order, the First and Second Respondents filed their written submissions in the Industrial Registry on 12 June 2025.
  3. [20]
    The Appellant did not file its submissions on 23 June 2025. On 24 June 2025, the Industrial Registry emailed the Appellant following up on the requirement for the Appellant to file and serve its written submissions.
  4. [21]
    On 24 June 2025, an email was received from the Appellant in which the Appellant advised that it had come to the attention of the legal officer with carriage of the proceedings on behalf of the Appellant that QPS held documents relevant to the matter (that had not been disclosed), however the documents were voluminous. In the email the Appellant sought an adjournment of the hearing until a date after 15 July 2025.
  5. [22]
    The matter was mentioned on 26 June 2025. At that mention, the Respondents did not oppose the application for an adjournment and the hearing of the application was adjourned until 7 July 2025.
  6. [23]
    On Tuesday, 1 July 2025 the Appellant provided the parties and the Commission with a Further Amended List of Documents which lists an additional 28 new documents relating to the mould issues at Logan Central Police Station. A perusal of that list reveals that it appeared to substantially address the concerns of the Second Respondent regarding the Appellant's inadequate disclosure, at least in relation to categories 1 to 4 of the categories identified in paragraph [15] above and for the period from 2018 to 2023.
  7. [24]
    By email dated 4 July 2025 the Second Respondent requested that the hearing on 7 July 2025 proceed. By email dated 7 July 2025 the Appellant contended that it had served a Further Amended List of Documents, provided copies of those documents to the Second Respondent, and complied with a further request for additional documents. The Appellant contended that the order sought by the Second Respondent would not result in the provision of any additional documents or information by the Appellant and in those circumstances the hearing was premature and unnecessary.
  8. [25]
    In light of the request from the Second Respondent (the applicant in the application), the Commission determined that the hearing should proceed.

The relevant legislative provisions and legal framework

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011

  1. [26]
    Rule 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Rules') relevantly provides that the Commission may make a directions order about the conduct of the proceeding on the application of a party or on the initiative of the Commission. Rule 41(2)(o) provides that a directions order may relate to requiring disclosure of documents and r 41(2)(p) provides that a directions order may relate to requiring inspection of documents.
  1. [27]
    Rule 46 of the Rules deals with the duty of disclosure and provides:

46 Duty of disclosure

  1. If a directions order requiring disclosure of documents is made, a party must disclose any document that—
  1. is directly relevant to the proceeding or a matter in issue in the proceeding; and
  1. is in, or comes into, the possession of the party.
  1. A party must act under subrule (1) until the proceeding is concluded or the matter in issue is admitted, withdrawn, struck out or otherwise disposed of.
  1. Subrule (1) does not apply to a document in relation to which there is a valid claim to privilege from disclosure.
  1. [28]
    Rule 211 of the UCPR relevantly provides:

211Duty of disclosure

  1. A party to a proceeding has a duty to disclose to each other party each document—
  1. in the possession or under the control of the first party; and
  1. directly relevant to an allegation in issue in the pleadings; and
  1. if there are no pleadings—directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding.

…

(Emphasis added)

  1. [29]
    The IRT Rules and r 211 of the UCPR apply to workers' compensation appeals pursuant to s 553 of the Act.
  2. [30]
    In Kelsey v Logan City Council & Ors (No. 6) ('Kelsey (No. 6)'),[7] Deputy President O'Connor (as his Honour then was) observed in relation to the original version of rule 46(1)(a) of the IRT Rules (which required disclosure of any document that was 'relevant to the proceeding or a matter in issue in the proceeding') as follows:

[14] The "train of inquiry" test, as propounded in Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (Peruvian Guano) remains the test of general application for discovery in the Commission. In the Peruvian Guano case, Brett LJ stated:

It seems to me that every document relates to the matters in question in the action, which not only would be evidenced upon any issue, but also which, it is reasonable to suppose, contains information which may—not which must—either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary. I have put in the words ‘either directly or indirectly’ because, as it seems to me, a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of inquiry, which may have either of these two consequences.

(citations omitted)

  1. [31]
    In Kelsey (No. 6), his Honour further noted that r 211 of the UCPR which requires disclosure of each document in its possession or control which was directly relevant to an allegation in the proceedings was intended to impose a threshold on the process of discovery and replaced the old Peruvian Guano test.[8]
  2. [32]
    On 1 March 2021, r 46(1)(a) was amended by the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Amendment Rule 2021 (Qld) to insert the word 'directly'. The rule now provides that a party must make disclosure of a document if that document is 'directly relevant' to the proceedings or a matter in issue. (Emphasis added)
  1. [33]
    In Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 2),[9] Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon confirmed that the amendment to r 46 had narrowed the scope of the obligation of disclosure, and, as a consequence, the train of enquiry test was no longer relevant and instead,  parties need only make disclosure of documents that were directly relevant to an issue in the proceedings.[10]
  2. [34]
    The principles relevant to determining whether a document is 'directly relevant' were set out by Collier J in CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No 2).[11]
  3. [35]
    These principles were  summarised by Industrial Commissioner Knight in Huyghe v State of Queensland (Mackay Hospital and Health Service) as follows:[12]
  1. whether a document is directly relevant to an issue in the proceeding is a question of fact in the circumstances of the case;[13]
  1. 'directly' should not be understood to mean that which constitutes direct evidence, to the exclusion of circumstantial evidence.[14] Rather, 'directly relevant' means something which tends to prove or disprove the allegation in issue;[15] and
  2. a document will not be 'directly relevant' if, rather than tending to prove an issue in dispute, it merely tends to prove something that may be relevant to a disputed issue.[16]
  1. [36]
    In the recent decision of Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 3)[17] Deputy President Merrell made the following observations regarding the 'directly relevant' test in the context of an application to set aside a number of notices of attendance that had been served on relevant officers from the Council:

[34] Evidence which is '…directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding' is evidence which would tend to prove or disprove an allegation in issue in the proceedings.[18] The expression '…directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding' should not be taken to mean direct evidence as opposed to circumstantial evidence and, for example, a document may not itself prove a fact in issue but it may nonetheless supply circumstantial evidence, which taken with other evidence, tends to do so.[19]

Second Respondent's Submissions

Written Submissions

  1. [37]
    The Second Respondent submits that pursuant to r 46 of the IRT Rules and r 211 of the UCPR the test is whether a document is "directly relevant". The Second Respondent further submits that a document is directly relevant to a matter if it tends to prove or disprove the matter.[20] If part of a document is relevant, the whole of the document should ordinarily be disclosed.[21]
  2. [38]
    Pursuant to r 223 of the UCPR, the Second Respondent submits that if there is an "objective likelihood" that the duty of disclosure has not been complied with, orders may be made to require a party to disclose a document ( or a class of documents) or to file an affidavit stating that a document (or a class of documents) does not exist. In Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd[22], the Court of Appeal eschewed the "former inflexible approach" to disclosure and said (at [10]):

If it appeared, for example, that an order for further disclosure would be likely to "facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of the real issues", that would enable and perhaps require the making of such an order. But there must, at least in the ordinary case, be something more than mere suspicion, to justify granting relief to a party complaining of incomplete disclosure.

  1. [39]
    The Second Respondent notes that QPS in its Statement of Facts and Contentions has disputed the extent and duration of any exposure (to mould or mycotoxins) as contended by the Second Respondent. As a consequence, the Second Respondent contends that the matters in dispute in the appeal include:
  1. The question of the "extent and duration of any exposure" of the Second Respondent to mould during his employment with the Appellant; and
  2. The question whether that mould exposure (whatever its degree) was a "significant contributing factor" to his condition of Parkinson's disease.[23]
  1. [40]
    In broad terms, the Second Respondent submits that it seeks disclosure from the Appellant in respect of two classes of documents:
  1. All documents that tend to prove or disprove the existence or extent of mould at the Logan Central Police Station at any time during the Second Respondent's employment with the Appellant between June 2009 and July 2020 ('the Relevant Period').
  2. All documents that tend to prove or disprove the potential for mould to have contributed to the Second Respondent's condition of Parkinson's Disease.
  1. [41]
    The Second Respondent then goes on to set out three grounds why it was considered that there were broad classes of documents likely to exist and be within the Appellant's possession or control. The Second Respondent concludes that there is an objective likelihood that the disclosable documents in the possession or control of the Appellant would be likely to include:
  1. Complaints about mould at Logan Station or its impact on workers related to the Relevant Period, including any compensation claims, incident reports, or injury reports.
  2. Correspondence (internally and with external entities) or records relating to mould at Logan Station during the Relevant Period.
  1. Correspondence (internally and with external entities) or records relating to cleaning or remediation of mould at Logan Station during the Relevant Period.
  2. Correspondence (internally and with external entities) or records relating to the commissioning of, or response to, the "Sitmars Report" mentioned in the Appellant's List of Documents.
  3. Reports, samples, test results, scientific studies, publications, media articles or other documents relating to mould or the risks associated with mould.
  1. [42]
    I have noted those submissions, however, subsequent events including the belated disclosure by the Appellant of the additional documentation in the Further Amended List of Documents have to some extent overtaken the Second Respondent's request for further disclosure from the Appellant.

Second Respondent's Oral Submissions

  1. [43]
    Mr Sweeney in his oral submissions firstly noted that whilst the further disclosure from QPS had been helpful, the email chains that have been provided refer to attachments that had not been disclosed. The Second Respondent also noted that the disclosed documents referred to:
  • Workplace Health and Safety attendances in March 2018 and advice provided about mould. The Appellant had not disclosed any documents relating to the attendances or the advice provided.
  • A reference in 2017 to air samples, reports and Workplace Health and Safety advice which all pre-dated the first Simtars report from June 2018 (which has been disclosed).
  • In January 2020, the Second Respondent contends that there is a reference to the replacement of office chairs and equipment due to mould.[24]
  1. [44]
    Mr Sweeney confirmed in his oral submissions that primarily the Second Respondent was pressing its application in relation to the documents sought in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application in existing proceedings. The Commission raised concerns with the Second Respondent about the breadth of what is sought in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application in that it sought the disclosure of documents relating to mould at any other QPS Police Station, or injuries or death linked to mould exposure at any QPS Police Station. The Second Respondent confirmed that he did not press the application in relation to any other police station.[25]
  2. [45]
    In relation to the request for media articles, incident notification forms, claim forms, statements, notes or internal correspondence relating to any claims or potential claims by other QPS officers, employees or contractors, the Second Respondent contends that these categories of documents are directly relevant because:
  • The period of exposure to mould, and the extent of exposure between 2009 to 2020 is in issue.[26]
  • In some of the expert evidence, in particular a report from Dr Saines, he assumes that there is no cluster of diseases coming from the Logan Central Police Station.[27]
  1. [46]
    When the entirety of the period from 2009 to 2020 is considered, there is a complete absence of any documentation regarding mould at the Logan Central Police Station from 2010 to 2017. The Second Respondent appears to submit that because of this claim the injury notifications are particularly relevant.[28]
  2. [47]
    Other than those submissions, the Second Respondent was content to rely upon the written submissions filed on 12 June 2025.

First Respondent's Written and Oral Submissions

  1. [48]
    The First Respondent both in its written submissions filed on 12 June 2025 and in oral submissions at the hearing on 7 July 2025 supports the Second Respondent's application for further disclosure and adopts the Second Respondent's submissions.

Appellant's Written and Oral Submissions

  1. [49]
    At the hearing on 7 July 2025, the Appellant provided short written submissions.
  2. [50]
    In those submissions the Appellant confirmed that an issue between the parties is whether the Second Respondent's condition is a result of exposure to mould etc, and whether it arose out of, or in the course of employment and whether the Second Respondent's employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.[29] The Appellant also notes that the extent and duration of the Second Respondent's exposure was an issue.[30]
  3. [51]
    The Appellant contends that it has made disclosure to the Second Respondent, and that the disclosure process is ongoing as is evident from recent correspondence between the parties. The Appellant submits that the ambit of what is in dispute between parties is now unclear.[31]
  4. [52]
    In oral submissions Mr McLeod contends that the matters in dispute are effectively:
  • The conflict in expert medical evidence regarding causation, that is, whether the workplace exposure to mould and the potential toxins over a significant period of time, can cause Parkinson's Disease.[32] 
  • A factual dispute regarding the extent and duration of any exposure as contended by the Second Respondent. Mr McLeod foreshadowed that there may be a debate about periods of time that the Second Respondent was at work and actually in the station as opposed to performing duties as a general duties officer away from the station.[33]
  1. [53]
    In relation to the documentation sought in categories 5 and 6 of the application, the Appellant takes the position that what is sought by the Second Respondent is simply not relevant to the issues to be determined in the appeal.
  2. [54]
    Regarding claim forms, incident reports or other documentation related to injury claims or reporting by other officers at Logan Central Police Station during the relevant period, the Appellant notes that what appears to be advanced by the Second Respondent is that if there are other claims made by police officers or other personnel who worked at that period of time at the Logan Central Police Station, that document is sought to try and prove the fact that they have been exposed to mould and have then developed a particular condition or conditions.[34]
  3. [55]
    The Appellant contends that this amounts to some type of similar fact argument regarding what other people have experienced being used to bolster the Second Respondent's claim of exposure and causation. The Appellant submits that the evidence is not directly relevant.[35]
  4. [56]
    The Appellant further contended that the fact that another officer or employee may have sustained a different type of condition to Parkinson's Disease, is totally irrelevant to the Second Respondent's claim and condition.[36] The Appellant also submitted that a claim form (redacted or otherwise) from another QPS employee working at Logan Central Police Station would be totally irrelevant.
  5. [57]
    In relation to the Second Respondent's request for the disclosure of media articles, the Appellant submitted as follows:

… might all be very interesting but, again, totally irrelevant, and it can be tested this way; what’s the relevance of a media article where a journalist might be commenting upon a particular state of what might be going on in Logan. Again, all very interesting from potentially an historical fact that can’t have any relevance to Mr Safi’s claim, because, at the end of the day, there’s really two main points: he has to demonstrate that he has been exposed to mould over that period of time and how long for; and once that’s established, then the respective medical experts no doubt can comment upon whether or not such exposure can give rise to the condition that he claims.[37]

Second Respondent's reply submissions

  1. [58]
    Mr Sweeney in his reply submissions in relation to the issue of claim forms or notification forms by other QPS officers or employees who worked at Logan Central Police Station during the relevant period, contended that this category of documents was only relevant to the extent and duration of exposure in circumstances where there is a gap in disclosed documents between 2010 and 2017.[38]
  2. [59]
    In relation to media articles, the Second Respondent submits that they are relevant because they are alluded to in the course of some of the disclosure. The Second Respondent in reply made reference to one or more media articles relating to a mould cancer case involving a QPS police officer who had been stationed at Logan Central Police Station during the relevant period.[39]
  3. [60]
    The Second Respondent confirmed that he is seeking relevant records that establish the extent and duration of mould exposure at the police station during the relevant period. The Second Respondent confirmed that it is not advancing a cluster argument for Parkinson's disease arising from exposure at Logan Central Police Station.

Consideration

  1. [61]
    In Kelsey (No. 6) Deputy President O'Connor (as his Honour then was) made the following pertinent observation:

It goes without saying that it is in the interests of the proper administration of justice that all relevant information is disclosed at an early stage in proceedings to assist the parties to assess the strength and weaknesses of their respective cases.[40]

  1. [62]
    In the present case it is unfortunate that it has taken four requests by the Second Respondent over a period of approximately six months, and ultimately an application to be filed by the Second Respondent to provide further disclosure, to prompt the Appellant (a model litigant) to comply with its disclosure obligations.
  2. [63]
    As outlined above, the test now utilised by the Commission to determine if documents must be disclosed is whether the documents are directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding. I will address the additional disclosure sought by the Second Respondent in turn below.

Categories 1 to 4

  1. [64]
    I am satisfied that the various categories of documents that are identified in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the application in existing proceedings (other than media articles) are all directly relevant to the issue in dispute in the proceedings as to the extent and duration of the Second Respondent's exposure to mould and related toxins at his workplace at the Logan Central Police Station.
  2. [65]
    The Appellant in its Further Amended List of Documents has disclosed an additional 24 documents that apparently cover the period from March 2017 to 23 June 2020.
  3. [66]
    The Second Respondent in oral submissions (see paragraph [43] above) contends that from a perusal of the additional disclosure that has been made by the Appellant, it has identified other potentially relevant documents that are referred to in the disclosure. The Appellant as at the date of the hearing had not disclosed the additional documents.
  4. [67]
    From the Second Respondent's brief description of some of those documents during oral submissions, I am satisfied that those documents are also likely to be directly relevant to the issue of the extent, duration and significance of the mould infestation at the Logan Central Police Station during the relevant period. I am satisfied that those documents should be disclosed.
  5. [68]
    The last three documents that have been disclosed in the Appellant's Further Amended List of Documents are as follows:

Description of Document

Person who made document

Date

QPS Notification and Record of Incident

QPS Employee

02/07/2010

QPS Incident Investigation

Raymond Corcoran

02/07/2010

Logan District Mould Hazard Report

QPS

Undated

  1. [69]
    The Second Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions includes the following contentions:
  1. The Logan Station, throughout Mr Safi's employment with the QPS, contained significant surface and airborne mould, which was mycotoxin producing and was hazardous to health of occupants, including Mr Safi.
  2. Mr Safi regularly and continuously inhaled, ingested and was dermally exposed to harmful and high levels of surface and airborne mould and mycotoxins whilst working for the QPS at the Logan Station between 12 June 2009 and 20 July 2020.[41]
  1. [70]
    From the two additional documents that have been subsequently disclosed by the Appellant, it appears that there were mould infestation issues occurring in or about July 2010 at the Logan Central Police Station that gave rise to an incident report and an investigation.
  2. [71]
    Given this, the absence of any further documentation being disclosed by the Appellant between July 2010 and March 2017 about mould infestation at the Logan Central Police Station is somewhat surprising, given the two contentions made by the Second Respondent about the extent and length of his exposure to mould in the workplace.
  3. [72]
    Any additional documentation not previously disclosed by the Appellant that satisfies the description of the documents in categories 1 to 4 of the application in existing proceedings that were created in the period from 12 June 2009 to 19 July 2020 should be disclosed by the Appellant.
  4. [73]
    In relation to the issue of media articles, I accept the submissions of the Appellant that this category of document would represent either commentary, opinion or contemporaneous reporting of the journalist's understanding of what was occurring at the Logan Central Police Station. I am not satisfied that the Second Respondent has established how this type of document could tend to prove or disprove a matter in issue in the appeal. I am therefor not satisfied that this type of document meets the threshold of being directly relevant to the issues in contention in the appeal.

Categories 5 and 6

  1. [74]
    In relation to these two categories of documents, in the application in existing proceedings filed by the Second Respondent, he initially sought documents in these categories relating to not only the Logan Central Police Station but also any other police station.
  2. [75]
    At the hearing of the application the Second Respondent appropriately conceded that he did not press the disclosure application for documents relating to any other police station. If the request had been pressed, I would have considered the application to be too broad,  and that documentation relating to mould at other police stations would not have been directly relevant in circumstances where the Second Respondent did not work at those stations.
  3. [76]
    The Second Respondent has sought disclosure of claim forms, statements, notes or correspondence (including correspondence with any QPS workers, worker's representatives, or Union) relating to mould at the Logan Central Police Station. The Second Respondent has also sought the same species of documents relating to any claims, potential claims, inquests or potential inquests involving QPS workers, contractors or visitors in respect of mould related injuries or deaths alleged to be linked to the Logan Central Police Station.
  4. [77]
    As noted in paragraph [60] above, the Second Respondent confirmed at the hearing that he is not seeking to mount some form of cluster of injury argument. Given the nature of Parkinson's Disease as a neurodegenerative disorder, this concession was appropriate. Evidence (if it is even available) of there being other mould related injuries or conditions such as cancer in my view would not be directly relevant to the Second Respondent's claim.
  5. [78]
    At the hearing I raised with the Second Respondent's representative my concerns in relation to these categories of documents. Firstly, I indicated I had concerns how a claim form, statement, or other compensation related document pertaining to another QPS employee or contractor, for unidentified injuries could be viewed to be directly relevant to the Second Respondent's claim. My further concern was one of privacy and confidentiality of the other potential claimants' information.
  6. [79]
    In response to the latter concern, Mr Sweeney proposed that the documents could be redacted in relation to any confidential information. This would then mean that the parties and the Commission would be potentially left to deal with a number of documents:
  • in relation to unidentified claimants;
  • in respect of claims for injuries that may have no relevance to a neurodegenerative disorder like Parkinson's Disease;
  • for claims where neither the parties nor the Commission would have any knowledge of whether the claim was accepted or rejected, and the basis on which this occurred.
  1. [80]
    The Appellant contended that in effect the Second Respondent was seeking to raise a similar fact argument that if others have been exposed in the workplace and sustained some form of injury or condition from the mould exposure, this would bolster or support the Second Respondent's claim.
  2. [81]
    The Appellant contends that claims for injuries or conditions other than Parkinson's Disease are totally irrelevant.
  3. [82]
    The only ground that the Second Respondent has put forward to allege that documents of this type are relevant, is that they will assist in establishing the presence of mould at Logan Central Police Station.
  4. [83]
    In light of the concerns I have identified in paragraphs 78 and 79 herein, I am not satisfied that the Second Respondent has established that documents of the type identified in paragraph [76] above have evidential materiality or are directly relevant to the issues to be determined in this appeal.
  1. [84]
    Regarding the issue of complaint forms/emails, or incident notification forms relating to mould exposure by QPS employees or contractors at Logan Central Police Station, I note that QPS have in fact in the Further Amended List of Documents disclosed QPS Notification & Record of Incident provided by an unidentified QPS employee on or about 2 July 2010. The Appellant has also disclosed a related QPS Incident Investigation document in relation to that notification.
  2. [85]
    I believe that this type of document will be directly relevant to the issues in dispute both to establish the timeframe in which the mould infestation has been present at the Logan Central Police Station and also to potentially establish the extent and severity of the infestation. In my view this type of evidence will be directly relevant to both factual issues and potentially to evidence relating to medical causation.
  3. [86]
    If there are additional documents of this type in existence during the relevant period from 12 June 2009 to 19 July 2020, the Appellant should disclose these documents.

Orders

  1. [87]
    I make the following orders:
  1. Pursuant to rules 41(2)(o) and 46(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, the following documents are to be disclosed to the Second Respondent by the Appellant within 21 days of this order –
  • Documents in categories 1 to 4 relating to mould at the Logan Central Police Station for the period from June 2009 to July 2020 that have not been currently disclosed by the Appellant.
  • Complaint documents and incident notification reports (categories 5 and 6) relating to mould at the Logan Central Police Station for the period from June 2009 to July 2020.
  1. The application for disclosure of the following documents is dismissed –
  • Media articles as sought in Category 4 of the application for further discovery filed on 22 May 2025.
  • The balance of the documents sought in categories 5 and 6 of the application for further discovery filed on 22 May 2025.

Footnotes

[1] Affidavit of Sean Patrick Sweeney filed 22 May 2025: Exhibit 'SS-1' (S.S. Affidavit).

[2] Form 9 Notice of Appeal filed 1 October 2024.

[3] (S.S. Affidavit), paragraph 4.

[4] Ibid, paragraph 5: Exhibit 'SS-2'.

[5] Ibid, paragraph 6: Exhibit `SS-3'

[6] Ibid, paragraphs 6, 7 and 9: Exhibits 'SS-4', 'SS-6' and 'SS-8'.

[7] [2018] QIRC 115, [14] per O'Connor DP.

[8] Ibid, [15].

[9] [2023] QIRC 002.

[10] Ibid, [17] per Pidgeon IC.

[11] (2011) 212 IR 313, [34]-[37].

[12] [2022] QIRC 014, [20].

[13] (2011) 212 IR 313, [34].

[14] Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (In Liquidation) v Arthur Andersen & Co (No 5) [2001] SASC 335, [12].

[15] Robson v Reb Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102, 105.

[16] Quenchy Crusta Sales Pty Ltd v Logi-Tech Pty Ltd (2002) 223 LSJS 266, [11].

[17] [2025] QIRC 189.

[18] Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors; Santos Ltd & Ors v Xstrata Queensland Ltd [2005] QSC 323 [45] (McMurdo J) and Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 025, [42] (Davis J, President) and Niceforo v Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance Company & Ors [2023] QSC 282, [18] (Burns J).

[19] Niceforo v Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance Company & Ors [2023] QSC 282, [18] (Burns J).

[20] Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 25, [42]; Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd [2005] QSC 323, [45]; Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd [2011] QSC 183, [16]; Huyghe v State of Queensland (Mackay Hospital and Health Service) [2022] QIRC 14, [20].

[21] Nicholls v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety) [2024] QIRC 171, [9]; Menkens v Wintour [2007] 2 Qd R 40, 43.

[22][2001] 1 Qd R 276 at 283, [10] per Pincus JA.

[23] Respondent's written submissions, [15].

[24] T.1-3, lines 16-25.

[25] T.1-4, lines 43-44.

[26] T.1-4, lines 45-47.

[27] T.1-5, lines 13-16.

[28] T.1-5, lines 15-18.

[29] Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 12 December 2024, [13].

[30] Ibid, [14].

[31] Appellant's written submissions filed by leave on 7 July 2025, [7].

[32] T.1-5, lines 28-36.

[33] T.1-5, lines 38-44.

[34] T.1-5, lines 46-49.

[35] T.1-6, lines 3-13.

[36] T.1-6, lines 15-23.

[37] T.1-7, lines 5-14.

[38] T.1-8, lines 4-9.

[39] T.1-8, lines 15-21.

[40] Kelsey v Logan City Council & Ors (No. 6) [2018] QIRC 115, [52] per O'Connor DP.

 

[41] Affidavit of Sean Patrick Sweeney filed 22 May 2025: Exhibit SS-5, [22]-[23].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 203

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    O'Neill IC

  • Date:

    05 Aug 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
Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd [2011] QSC 183
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QSC 183
Cite 2 - [2011] QSC 183
CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) (2011) 212 IR 313
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2011) 212 IR 313
Cite 2 - (2011) 212 IR 313
Cite 3 - (2011) 212 IR 313
Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service [2023] QIRC 2
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 2
Cite 2 - [2023] QIRC 2
Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QB.D 55
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1882) 11 QB.D 55
Huyghe v State of Queensland (Mackay Hospital and Health Service) [2022] QIRC 14
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 14
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 14
Cite 3 - [2022] QIRC 14
Kelsey v Logan City Council & Ors (No.6) [2018] QIRC 115
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QIRC 115
Cite 2 - [2018] QIRC 115
Cite 3 - [2018] QIRC 115
Menkens v Wintour[2007] 2 Qd R 40; [2006] QSC 342
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] 2 Qd R 40
Cite 2 - [2007] 2 Qd R 40
Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 25
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] ICQ 25
Cite 2 - [2023] ICQ 25
Cite 3 - [2023] ICQ 25
Niceforo v Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company [2023] QSC 282
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QSC 282
Cite 2 - [2023] QSC 282
Cite 3 - [2023] QSC 282
Nicholls v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety) [2024] QIRC 171
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 171
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 171
Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 3) [2025] QIRC 189
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QIRC 189
Cite 2 - [2025] QIRC 189
Quenchy Crusta Sales Pty Ltd v Logi-Tech Pty Ltd (2002) 223 LSJS 266
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 223 LSJS 266
Cite 2 - (2002) 223 LSJS 266
Robson v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1997] 2 Qd R 102
Cite 2 - [1997] 2 Qd R 102
Southern Equities Corp Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Anderson & Co [2001] SASC 335
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] SASC 335
Cite 2 - [2001] SASC 335
Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd[2001] 1 Qd R 276; [1999] QCA 276
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] 1 Qd R 276
Cite 2 - [2001] 1 Qd R 276
Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd [2005] QSC 323
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2005] QSC 323
Cite 2 - [2005] QSC 323
Cite 3 - [2005] QSC 323

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.