Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Mylka v State of Queensland (Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works) - [2025] QIRC 22

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

Mylka v State of Queensland (Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works)[2025] QIRC 22

Mylka v State of Queensland (Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works)[2025] QIRC 22

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Mylka v State of Queensland (Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works) [2025] QIRC 022

PARTIES:

Mylka, Christopher

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2024/137

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

24 January 2025

MEMBER:

Gazenbeek IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

  1. Pursuant to s 580(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), I direct that the Appellant’s written submissions of 16 and 18 September 2024 be withheld from release or search absolutely.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – APPLICATION IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS – where appellant seeks suppression order to withhold submissions filed in substantive matter from release or search – where submissions contain reference to, and attachments of, confidential Cabinet material – suppression order granted

LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 451, 580

CASES:

John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131

Murphy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 213

Patterson v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 193

R v O'Dempsey (No. 3) [2017] QSC 338

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    By way of an interlocutory application filed in the Industrial Registry on 29 October 2024, Mr Christopher Mylka (‘the Appellant’) seeks a suppression order pursuant to section 580(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (‘the IR Act’).

Background

  1. [2]
    In their written submissions regarding this interlocutory application, the Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works (‘the Respondent’) usefully provided a background of these proceedings, extracted below:
  1. 2.
    Mr Mylka (the Appellant) filed an appeal of a conversion decision on 15 August 2024.
  1. 3.
    On 16 September 2024, the Appellant submitted written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with directions orders dated 16 August 2024.
  1. 4.
    On 18 September 2024, the Appellant re-submitted written submissions to comply with the Practice direction number 3 of 2021, Electronic filing and hard copies of documents issued by the Queensland Industrial Registrar.
  1. 5.
    Included in the Appellant’s submissions filed on 16 and 18 September 2024, was an Attachment titled Attachment 4 – HfQ Six-month milestones report (The report).
  1. 6.
    On 11 October 2024, the Appellant requested to withdraw their appeal of a conversion decision.
  1. 7.
    The Respondent confirms that the substantive issues in the Appellant’s appeal of a conversion decision have resolved, because the Appellant has accepted a permanent AO7 role with the Respondent.
  1. 8.
    On 23 October 2024, the Appellant filed the Interlocutory Application, seeking an order that the submissions filed or purportedly filed in the appeal be held from release or search on the basis that they refer to, and include, Cabinet documents that are subject to public interest immunity … the Appellant confirmed that the Respondent agrees to the Appellant seeking these orders.

Submissions

  1. [3]
    On 5 November 2024, I directed the parties to file written submissions in support of, or in reply to, the Appellant’s interlocutory application for suppression orders. These directions also stipulated that the matter would be dealt with on the papers following receipt of such submissions. 
  2. [4]
    By way of correspondence on 12 November 2024, the Appellant informed the Industrial Registry that he did not intend to file further submissions.
  3. [5]
    In their written submissions of 20 November 2024, the Respondent contends that the documents filed by the Appellant in his substantive submissions are Cabinet in Confidence, and are a draft version of information forming part of a Cabinet submission yet to be publicly released. Further, it is submitted that:
  1. 13.
    The Respondent considers that the disclosure of The report has the potential to prejudice the confidentiality of Cabinet considerations, deliberations or operations. This information is current as at 30 June 2024 and is therefore relatively recent (as opposed to being of historical interest only), and relates to the progress of public policy commitments (rather than being commercial in nature). Therefore, the Respondent respectfully submits that disclosure of The report is not in the public interest.
  1. 14.
    Further, the Respondent respectfully submits that persons other than the parties to the cause do not have a sufficient legitimate interest in being informed of The report. This is because:
  1. a.
    First, The report is neither central nor crucial to the appeal. The Appellant relies on The report in support of that statement that he has supported projects that are ongoing including monitoring and reporting of the Homes for Queenslanders portfolio (at paragraph 18(b) of both the submissions purportedly filed on 16 September 2024, and filed on 18 September 2024). However, the Appellant is still able to make this submission without relying on The report.
  1. b.
    Second, the Appellant has sought leave to withdraw his appeal. In this regard, the Appellant has accepted a permanent AO7 position with the Respondent.
  1. 15.
    The Appellant is therefore requesting an order pursuant to section 580(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 for the commission to direct withholding the release or search of the submissions filed or purported to be filed by the Appellant on 16 and 18 September 2024 on the basis that they refer to and include Cabinet documents. Respectfully, the Respondent consents to the Commission making orders the Appellant requests.
  1. 16.
    Alternatively, if the Commission is not minded to make the orders the Appellant requests, the Respondent respectfully asks that the Commission make orders directing that The report and references to it in the Appellant’s submissions purportedly filed on 16 September 2024 and filed on 18 September 2024 not be published and be withheld from release or search absolutely.
  1. [6]
    In light of the above submissions, the Respondent requests the Commission to grant the Appellant’s application, and either:
  • direct that the Appellant’s submissions of 16 and 18 September 2024 not be published and be withheld from release or search absolutely; or
  • direct that the information contained in the report, and the references to it contained within the Appellant’s submissions of 16 and 18 September 2024, not be published and be withheld from release or search absolutely.

Consideration

  1. [7]
    Pursuant to s 451(1) of the IR Act, the Commission has the general power to do “all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions.”
  2. [8]
    While the Commission has no inherent power to prohibit publication, release or search or evidence or records, the power to do those things is found in s 580 of the IR Act, the relevant provisions of which relevantly state that: 
  1. the court, commission or registrar may direct –
  1. (a)
    a report, or part of a report, of proceedings in an industrial cause not be published; or
  1. (b)
    evidence given, records tendered or things exhibited in proceedings for an industrial cause be withheld from release or search.
  1. The direction may prohibit the publication, release or search absolutely, or except on conditions ordered by the court, commission or registrar.
  1. (7)
    The direction may be given if the court, commission or registrar considers –
  1. (a)
    disclosure of the matter would not be in the public interest; or
  1. (b)
    persons, other than parties to the cause, do not have a sufficient legitimate interest in being informed of the matter.
  1. [9]
    In R v O'Dempsey (No. 3), it was held that:[1]

The principle of open justice is one of the most fundamental aspects of the justice system in Australia. Exceptions to the principle are few and are strictly defined.

Our judicial system is based on the notion that proceedings are conducted in open court. Justice must not just be done; it must seen to be done.

  1. [10]
    However, as observed in John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales, “the rule of openness must be modified to meet the exigencies of a particular case” in some circumstances, including where the openness of court proceedings would “destroy the attainment of justice”, “discourages its attainment in cases generally”, or would “derogate from even more urgent considerations of public interest.”[2]
  2. [11]
    On many occasions, the Commission has declined suppression orders that were sought to merely, for example, “maintain privacy, avoid gossip and embarrassment, mitigate reputational damage, keep private health or finances, or avoid disincentivising applications in similar positions from bringing similar applications.”[3]
  3. [12]
    The Appellant’s own reasons for seeking a suppression order are in clear contrast to the reasons often cited by applicants in such matters. I agree with the Respondent’s submission that there is not sufficient legitimate public interest in being informed of, or having access to, the Cabinet material exhibited to the Appellant’s written submissions. To allow unmitigated access to this material, when the public would have been denied access to it had the Appellant’s written submissions not been filed, would serve only to indulge the curiosity of members of the public, at the expense of undermining the confidentiality of Cabinet considerations and operations.[4] Given that the Appellant’s substantive appeal has already been withdrawn and resolved, and a published decision in the appeal is now unnecessary, undermining Cabinet confidentiality in this manner is even less justified given the circumstances.
  4. [13]
    I am of the view that the public interest in maintaining the openness of the Commission’s proceedings is surpassed by the necessity of allowing confidential Cabinet material to remain so, and order accordingly.

Orders

  1. [14]
    It is ordered that:
    1. Pursuant to s 580(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), I direct that the Appellant’s written submissions of 16 and 18 September 2024 be withheld from release or search absolutely.

Footnotes

[1] [2017] QSC 338.

[2] (1991) 26 NSWLR 131 [476]-[477].

[3] Patterson v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 193 [29].

[4] I note that confidential material was the subject of a suppression order in Murphy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 213 [48].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Mylka v State of Queensland (Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Mylka v State of Queensland (Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 22

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Gazenbeek IC

  • Date:

    24 Jan 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
John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court (N.S.W.) (1991) 26 NSWLR 131
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) 26 NSWLR 131
Cite 2 - (1991) 26 NSWLR 131
Murphy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 213
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 213
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 213
Patterson v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 193
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 193
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 193
R v O'Dempsey (No 3) [2017] QSC 338
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QSC 338
Cite 2 - [2017] QSC 338

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.