Margetts v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
[2025] QIRC 242
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
- Margetts v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2025] QIRC 242
- Add to List
Margetts v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2025] QIRC 242
Margetts v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2025] QIRC 242
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Margetts v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 242 |
PARTIES: | Margetts, Craig (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | PSA/2025/20 |
PROCEEDING: | Application in existing proceedings |
DELIVERED ON: | 8 September 2025 |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | O'Neill IC On the papers |
ORDERS: | The application for suppression of ABW and KM's name in a decision relating to PSA/2025/20 is granted. |
CATCHWORDS: | PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – where Respondent has applied for a suppression order – where the Respondent seeks suppression of the identification of complainants – where Respondent contends that publication of identifying information may cause complainants prejudice or harm – where the Appellant does not oppose the application – where principles of open justice apply – consideration of principles of open justice and circumstances where Commission may exercise discretion to suppress publication– application for suppression order granted. |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 451 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) s 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 |
CASES: | AB v State of Queensland (Department of Youth Justice) [2021] QIRC 133 Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263 Barnett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 424 J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1993] QCA 012; [1995] 2 Qd R 10 Patterson v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 193 RY v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 208 Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 Smith v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2021] QIRC 327 |
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
- [1]Dr Craig Margetts ('the Appellant') is employed by Metro North Hospital and Health Service ('MNHHS') as a Director of Medical Services Reliever. For the purposes of the current application Dr Margetts is the Respondent.
- [2]The Appellant has been continuously employed by Queensland Health since July 2001.
- [3]On 19 June 2023, a complaint was made to MNHHS regarding the Appellant's engagement with two members of the public.
- [4]The Appellant was requested to attend a meeting with the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Elizabeth Rushbrook and Mr Brett Bourke, Acting Deputy Executive Director to discuss the complaint on 27 June 2023.
- [5]In a letter dated 23 May 2024, the Appellant was afforded an opportunity to show cause as to why two allegations should not be substantiated. The allegations were:
- On various occasions in or about January 2023, the Appellant sent inappropriate text messages to a member of the public, specifically Ms ABW.
- On various occasions in or about June 2023, the Appellant engaged with members of the public, including Ms ABW and Mr KM, in an inappropriate manner.
- [6]The Appellant provided a response to the allegations on 5 September 2024.
- [7]In a letter dated 20 January 2025, Dr Rushbrook advised the Appellant that the two allegations were substantiated ('the decision').
- [8]From that decision the Appellant has filed the substantive appeal which challenges a disciplinary finding decision contained in the decision dated 20 January 2025. That appeal is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act').
- [9]A directions order was issued by the Commission on 13 February 2025 requiring the parties to file submissions. The parties have complied with the directions orders in all respects.
- [10]An oral hearing was held on 29 April 2025.
- [11]On 14 May 2025, MNHHS as the Applicant lodged a Form 4 – Application in existing proceedings seeking the suppression of the names of the complainants with whom Dr Margetts had allegedly engaged with. In seeking those orders, the Applicant relies upon r 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the IRT Rules').
- [12]This decision will only deal with the application for suppression orders. In summary, in that application the Applicant seeks the following orders from the Commission:
- That any decision that may be published in relation to matter PSA/2025/20 be modified to remove any specific reference to ABW and her husband, KM. Specifically, the Applicant requests that they be referred to by their initials ABW and KM respectively, or in the alternative a pseudonym so their identities are de-identified and not disclosed in a decision.
- [13]The Applicant bears the onus to demonstrate that circumstances exist which would justify making the proposed suppression orders.
- [14]The Respondent provided an email to the Industrial Registry on 19 May 2025 in which he confirmed that he raised no objection to the application in circumstances where it only sought the anonymisation of the complainant's names and not his own or that of the Applicant's personnel involved in the disciplinary process.
- [15]I specifically note that the fact that the Respondent has in effect consented to the suppression of the identity of the complainants, is not a matter which I have relied upon in determining the application. The outcome of the application is dependent upon my assessment as to whether the Applicant has made out a basis for an exception to the principle of open justice being applied by the Commission. I accept the correctness of the following observations of Industrial Commissioner Pratt in Patterson v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services):[1]
… The relevant parties' views are always an important consideration when determining issues put before the Commission. However, the parties' views do not feature anywhere in the principles guiding the discretion to make suppression orders. The bar is set very high for making out an exception to the open justice principles. That bar is not cleared because those who happen to be involved in the matter do not oppose the suppression sought. …
- [16]The issue for my determination is whether the Commission should exercise its discretion to make suppression orders in the terms sought by the Applicant or in some other form.
- [17]For the reasons that follow, the application for suppression is granted.
Relevant law
Legislation
- [18]Section 451 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') bestows general powers on the commission, and relevantly provides:
451General powers
- The commission has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions.
- Without limiting subsection (1), the commission in proceedings may—
…
- make an order it considers appropriate.
- [19]Rule 97 of the IRT Rules provides the Commission with a power to de-identify judgements and redact information for judgements if there is good reason to do so. Rule 97 relevantly provides as follows:
97 Publishing decisions etc.
- The registrar may publish on the QIRC website –
- a decision of the court, commission, or registrar; and
- the notice of the making or the amended of a bargaining instrument
- The registrar must, if the commission directs, publish an amendment of an instrument on the QIRC website.
Note -
For other documents the registrar must publish on the QIRC website, see sections 160, 215, 230 and 459 of the Act.
- The court, commission or registrar may, in the public interest or for another reason the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate –
- withhold publication of a document; or
- modify a document, before publication, in a way that does not affect the essence of the document.
…
Practice Directions
- [20]Practice Direction Number 3 of 2023 – Modification of a Document Before Publication ('Practice Direction 3 of 2023') and notes at paragraph 2 that:
Rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 confers discretion on the Tribunal to, in the public interest or for another reason the Tribunal considers appropriate, modify a document, before publication, in a way that does not affect the essence of the document.[2]
- [21]Practice Direction Number 4 of 2023 – Guideline for the Modification of a Document Before Publication ('Practice Direction 4 of 2023') also provides the following guidance regarding the modification of a document before publication by the Tribunal in paragraph 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.
- [22]Practice Direction 4 of 2023 then observes at paragraph 3 that:
Rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 confers discretion on the Court, Commission, or Industrial Registrar ('Tribunal') to, in the public interest or for another reason the Tribunal considers appropriate, withhold publication of a document, or modify a document, before publication, in a way that does not affect the essence of the document.
- [23]Practice Direction 4 of 2023 also observes at paragraph 4(a) that:
The circumstances where the Tribunal may consider it appropriate, in the public interest or for another reason, to modify a document before publication may include:
- not releasing identifying information of:
- an individual under 18 years of age;
…
- 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;
…
- [24]Paragraph 5 of Practice Direction 4 of 2023 states that:
The decision as to whether or not a document is de-identified and, if so, to what extent, is a matter for the Tribunal to determine.
Relevant Authorities
- [25]The Queensland Court of Appeal in the case of J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2),[4] ('J v L & A Services Pty Ltd') established six principles governing the exercise of discretion to issue suppression orders which are as follows:
- Although there is a public interest in avoiding and minimising disadvantages to private citizens from public activities, paramount public interest in the due administration of justice, freedom of speech, a free media and an open society require that court proceedings are able to be reported and discussed publicly.
- The public may be excluded and publicity prohibited when public access or publicity would frustrate the purpose of a court proceeding by preventing the effective enforcement of some substantive law and depriving the court's decision of practical utility …
- The permitted exceptions to the requirement of open justice are not based upon the premise that parties would be reasonably deterred from bringing court proceedings by an apprehension that public access or publicity would deprive the proceeding of practical utility, but upon the actual loss of utility which would occur, and the exceptions do not extend to proceedings which parties would be reasonably deterred from bringing if the utility of the proceedings would not be affected. Courts do not have access to the information needed to determine whether or not parties are reasonably deterred by openness or publicity from bringing particular kinds of proceedings; for example, sexual complaints. 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. Although the categories tend to coalesce, they are broadly as follows:
- Exclusion of the public or a substantive restraint upon publicity is not permissible unless abstractly essential to the practical utility of a proceeding; for example, prosecutions for blackmail or proceedings for the legitimate protection of confidential information …
- A limited exclusion or restraint is permissible if necessary to ensure that a proceeding is fair; for example, witnesses may be required to absent themselves from hearings, parts of jury trials may take place in the absence of the jury and limited or temporary restrictions on publicity may be imposed during the course of jury proceedings.
- An incidental, procedural restriction is permissible if necessary in the interests of a party or witness in a particular proceeding; for example, identities of witnesses or details of particular activities which are not directly material such as engaging in covert law enforcement operations or providing information to police may be suppressed.
- ... information may not be withheld from the public merely to save a party or witness from loss of privacy, embarrassment, distress, financial harm, or other 'collateral disadvantage', to use the expression adopted in R. v. Tait. Additionally, when it is the interests of a party or a witness which is relied on as the basis for a proposed restraint, those considerations must be balanced against other factors, including the interests of others involved in the proceeding and others who may be affected. Open justice is non-discriminatory, whereas exceptions to the principle of open justice deny equal rights to the disputing litigants and provide a benefit to some litigants which is unavailable to members of the general public …
- [26]In Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd[5] ('Aurizon') the respondent sought to have the names of the individual workers who were involved in the dispute to be de-identified. The application was supported by the applicant union. His Honour, Vice President O'Connor relevantly held as follows:
- [40]The starting point in considering an application to suppress or to withhold names of witnesses or parties is a fundamental principle of open justice; 'that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done'. This is a central feature of the administration of justice under the common law.
- [41]The open justice principle operates not only as an overarching principle guiding judicial decision-making and various aspects of procedure, it also gives rise to a number of substantive open justice rules that, in the usual course of events, a court must follow. Such rules include: first, that judicial proceedings are conducted, and decisions pronounced, in 'open court'; second, that evidence is communicated publicly to those present in the court; and third, that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, including by the media.
- [42]However, the rules to which the open justice principle gives rise are not absolute. Whilst the principles of open justice will usually require the publication of the names of those involved in the proceedings, there are numerous statutory exceptions.
- [43]The Commission has the power to de-identify judgments and redact information from judgments if there is a good reason to do so. Rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) recognises that power.
…
- [44]It is accepted that the discretion to anonymise a decision might be exercised in favour of not identifying persons who are the victim of sexual assault or discrimination, children, or persons whose private financial affairs are relevant to a decision. It is also accepted that the discretion may be exercised in circumstances where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice in particular proceedings or to avoid some other relevant harm.
[45] In my opinion, the application to withhold the names of the two workers can be best explained on the basis that in the absence of a restriction on publicity, damage will be caused to the individuals to such an extent and of such a kind as requiring some relief, in the interests of justice
[46] As was observed by Mahoney J in John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v The Local Court of New South Wales, these are the 'unacceptable' consequences that sometimes arise in litigation. Of course, as observed by Pincus JA in J v L A Services Pty Ltd (No 2), 'there is a balancing exercise involved, with an initial heavy weighting in favour of publicity – an exercise involving considerations of fairness'. (citations omitted)
Submissions
- [27]I have carefully considered the submissions provided by the Applicant. In light of the Respondent's lack of opposition to the application, the Respondent has not provided submissions.
Applicant's submissions
- [28]In support of the application the Applicant filed an affidavit from Mr David Marskell on 14 May 2025. In that affidavit, Mr Marskell deposes to the following:
- Part of the material forming the evidence in the disciplinary process included information about ABW's history of mental health concerns, trauma, nude and sexual images and references to her employment as a sex worker.[6]
- The material also included images of ABW and KM engaging in sexual activity. It also makes reference to the Respondent calling KM a pimp and making unfounded allegations about KM.[7]
- He reasonably believes that there is a risk that ABW and KM will suffer stigma-based harm if their names are published in a written decision about PSA/2025/20.[8]
- [29]In the submissions contained in Schedule 1 to the application, the Applicant cites the oft cited decision of Vice President O'Connor in Aurizon.[9] In the Aurizon decision, his Honour ordered that the identity of the two individual workers be de-identified in the decision on the following basis:
[45] In my opinion, the application to withhold the names of the two workers can be best explained on the basis that in the absence of a restriction on publicity, damage will be caused to the individuals to such an extent and of such a kind as requiring some relief, in the interests of justice.[10]
- [30]The Applicant also cites the decision of Industrial Commissioner Dwyer in RY v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[11] where the Commission observed:
[34] Noting the importance of strict adherence to the principles of open justice and the limited exceptions, I consider there is a compelling reason why the Appellant's name ought to be suppressed in this matter. While I wholly accept that embarrassment to a party is not a sufficient basis to deviate from the importance of open justice, I consider that the potential for stigmatisation of the Appellant in this matter goes beyond mere embarrassment.
…
[37] It would be a grave injustice if the publication of the Appellant's name led to her being unfairly and harmfully stigmatised. It would potentially make her employment untenable which would indirectly impose a greater penalty on the Appellant than was warranted.
[38] While I accept that the risk of such harm to the Appellant might be low, the consequences if it does occur are sufficiently serious and unjust that non-publication is appropriate in my view.
- [31]The Applicant contends that there is a risk that ABW and KM may suffer prejudice if they were to be named in any published decision.
- [32]The Applicant's contention is premised on there being material within PSA/2025/20 which refers to ABW disclosing a history of mental health concerns, trauma, nude images and information about her employment as a sex worker.
- [33]The material also includes images of ABW and KM engaging in sexual activity. It also makes reference to Dr Margetts calling KM a pimp and making other allegations about KM.
- [34]The Applicant submits that if the decision were to be published without modifications to deidentify ABW and KM, they both may experience stigma based harm. That is, if a prospective employer was to conduct internet searches, the published decision may appear and there is a risk that they would be unfairly judged.
- [35]Further, the Applicant submits that it became aware of this matter through complaints made by KM and the Applicant independently decided to deal with this matter via a discipline process.
- [36]In those circumstances, the Applicant contends that it would be unfair and unjust for KM and ABW to experience stigma-based harm simply because KM made a complaint based on his belief that the Respondent had engaged with him and his partner in an unprofessional manner.
- [37]The Applicant further submits that referring to ABW and KM in an abbreviated form, or alternatively via a pseudonym will not affect the essence of the document. The appeal is about whether the Applicant's discipline finding decision against the Respondent was fair and reasonable. It is unlikely that the rationale and/or learnings from a published decision would be affected by modifying the names of ABW and KM.
Consideration
- [38]I fully acknowledging the importance of the open justice principle, and in particular that the principles of open justice will usually require the publication of the names of those involved in the proceedings, including witnesses and complainants such as ABW and KM.
- [39]I further acknowledge that in a number of authorities the Commission has refused to exercise a discretion to suppress the identity of a party on the grounds that the party may suffer some reputational damage or harm to current or future employment prospects.[12]
- [40]As noted, by his Honour, Vice President O'Connor in Aurizon,[13] the rules to which the open justice principle gives rise are not absolute and the authorities have recognised that exceptions to the application of the rules can apply where there is a risk of harm or stigmatisation of someone involved in the proceeding.
- [41]The evidence that was before the delegated Decision-Maker in determining the disciplinary finding decision included the following:
- In the WhatsApp conversation between ABW and the Respondent in early January 2023, she reveals that she participated in OnlyFans and private videocalls (with other parties).
- Her primary thoughts for the coming year were figuring out how to make her family secure without dismissing her or her partner's dignity.
- ABW discusses some of her sexual activities on OnlyFans which she notes is beginning to feel tawdry and demeaning (I note that none of this involved the Respondent at this time).
- She had thoughts of some kind of arrangement being made privately with someone that is married but could not have sex due to physical inability.
- ABW reporting that she and her partner have been going through an insanely difficult time.
- ABW reveals some family history and that she had moved to China as a child and returned to Australia as an 18 year old.
- ABW told the Respondent that her first years back in Australia were wild. She noted that even though she was committed to finishing her degree, she got into a toxic relationship with a man who habitually fed her psychedelic drugs and emotionally abused her for two years.
- ABW reported conceiving her daughter during this period and then fleeing to a women's refuge in 2015. She then noted a history of protracted family law proceedings where her former partner and his family used their considerable resources to launch a legal campaign that savagely defamed her and her new partner.
- ABW described this period as being 'rough. It's also been honing'.
- In the course of later conversations ABW shares nude and semi-nude images and videos or links to videos of her engaging in sexual activity along with links to her Instagram account and OnlyFans page.
- There are further private messages that occur in June 2023 in which ABW reveals relationship issues with KM (allegedly caused by her earlier conduct online).
- During one of the messages in June 2023 ABW reveals that her mental health issues were rampant in January 2023 and she was not seeing her psychologist for treatment of chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder.
- [41]In light of the likelihood of the above evidence having to be considered in determining the substantive appeal (as it has been in determining this application), I am satisfied that there is a real risk that both ABW and KM may experience stigmatisation if their identities were made known in a published decision available to the public on the Supreme Court Library website.
- [42]Further, in light of the mental health issues and history that ABW revealed in June 2023, I am also satisfied that the publication of some or all of the above material in a published decision could have adverse impacts on ABW's mental health.
- [43]I am satisfied that the risk of stigmatism and further mental health harm go well beyond any suggestion of ABW and KM simply being embarrassed by the publication of the above private information and extend to the risk of real harm being suffered by one or both of them.
Conclusion
- [44]I am satisfied that for the reasons set out above, the discretion for the Commission to make suppression orders has been enlivened in this particular case.
- [45]I consider that the Applicant has established a sound basis for the principle of open justice to be set aside in this matter and for a suppression order being made by the Commission.
Order
- [46]Accordingly, I make the following order:
The application for suppression of ABW and KM's name in a decision relating to PSA/2025/20 is granted.
Footnotes
[1] [2024] QIRC 193, [40] per Pratt IC.
[2] Paragraph 1 of Practice Direction 3 of 2023 defines 'the Tribunal' as including the Industrial Court, Industrial Commission and Industrial Registrar.
[3] citing Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417.
[4] [1993] QCA 012; [1995] 2 Qd R 10.
[5] [2021] QIRC 263 [40] – [46].
[6] Affidavit of David Marskell, filed 14 May 2025, [3].
[7] Ibid, [4].
[8] Ibid, [6].
[9] [2021] QIRC 263.
[10] Ibid, [45].
[11] [2023] QIRC 208, [34], [37]-[38].
[12] See by way of example the following decisions: Smith v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2021] QIRC 327 at T.1-8, lines 12 to 39, T.1-10, lines 30-41 per Merrell DP; AB v State of Queensland (Department of Youth Justice) [2021] QIRC 133, [9]-[10] per Dwyer IC; Barnett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 424, [22] per Power IC.
[13] Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263, [42], [44]-[45].