Uy v St Vincent's Private Hospital Northside
[2025] QIRC 44
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
- Uy v St Vincent's Private Hospital Northside[2025] QIRC 44
- Add to List
Uy v St Vincent's Private Hospital Northside[2025] QIRC 44
Uy v St Vincent's Private Hospital Northside[2025] QIRC 44
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Uy v St Vincent's Private Hospital Northside [2025] QIRC 044 |
PARTIES: | Uy, Angelica (Applicant) v St Vincent's Private Hospital Northside (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | EC/2025/68 |
PROCEEDING: | Application for payment instead of taking long service leave |
DELIVERED ON: | 7 February 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | 7 February 2025 |
MEMBER: | O'Neill IC |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPEAL – payment for long service leave instead of taking long service leave – s 110 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) – order for payment made by the Commission – applicant no longer seeks payment – whether applicant should have leave to re-open the application – whether order should be revoked – leave granted – order revoked – application dismissed |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 110, s 484 |
CASES: | EB v CT (No 2) [2008] QSC 306 Fowler v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 149 |
APPEARANCES: | Ms A Uy, the Applicant in person. Mr D Evans for the Respondent. |
Reasons for Decision
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript
Introduction
- [1]The Applicant lodged an application for payment instead of long service leave pursuant to section 110 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') on 24 January 2025.
- [2]The Commission issued directions to the employer in the usual terms for an 'Employer Statement' regarding the application.
- [3]The response from the Employer was filed in the Industrial Registry on 30 January 2025. Upon review of the application, the employer response and the application being compliant in all respects with the requirements of s 110 of the IR Act, the Commission issued an Order dated 30 January 2025 for the payment of long service leave entitlements to the Applicant.
- [4]On Monday, 3 February 2025, the Industrial Registry received email communication from the Applicant which indicated that she no longer wished to receive payment of the long service leave because of the tax implications, of which she was apparently not aware.
- [5]The Respondent, St Vincent's Hospital, was contacted by email the same day by the Commission to ascertain whether payment had been processed and paid to the Applicant. By email dated 3 February 2025, the Respondent confirmed that the payment had not been made, and it had been removed from the pay run which was to be processed on 4 February 2025.
Legislation
- [6]Section 484(1) and (2) of the IR Act relevantly provide:
- 484Power to reopen proceedings
- (1)On application by a person mentioned in section 485, proceedings may be reopened by—
- (a)for proceedings taken before the full bench — the full bench; or
- (b)otherwise — the commission.
- (2)If the commission reopens proceedings, it may—
- (a)revoke or amend a decision or recommendation made by it; and (b) make the decision or recommendation it considers appropriate.
- …
- [7]Section 539 of the IR Act sets out the powers of the Commission incidental to the exercise of jurisdiction as follows:
- 539Powers incidental to exercise of jurisdiction
- Except as otherwise provided for by this Act or the rules, the court, commission or registrar may—
- …
- (c)hear and decide an industrial cause in the way that appears best suited for the purpose; and
- …
- (e)correct, amend or waive an error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings, whether substantive or formal; and
- …
- (k)waive compliance with the rules.
- [8]Section 541 of the IR Act provides:
- 541Decisions generally
- The court or commission may, in an industrial cause do any of the following –
- (a)make a decision it considers just, and include provision for preventing or settling the industrial dispute or dealing with the industrial matter to which the cause relates, without being restricted to any specific relief claimed by the parties to the cause;…
- [9]Section 9 of the IR Act provides:
- 9What is an industrial matter
- (1)An "industrial matter" is a matter that affects or relates to -
- (a)work done or to be done; or
- (b)the privileges, rights or functions of -
- (i)employers or employees; or…
- (Emphasis added)
Proceedings in the Commission
- [10]In light of the email from the Applicant received in the Industrial Registry on 3 February 2024, the application was called on for mention before me on 7 February 2025.
- [11]I am satisfied that Ms Uy's application is an 'industrial cause' as contemplated by s 541 of the IR Act.[1]
- [12]During the course of the mention, the Applicant made an oral application to reopen the application. In light of the power provided in s 539(c) of the IR Act, I considered it appropriate to hear and decide the application. I waived the requirement for a formal application to be filed by the Applicant pursuant to s 539(e) and (k) of the IR Act. The application for reopening was not opposed by the Employer.
Consideration
- [13]I have considered the relevant principles identified by Deputy President Merrell in the decision of Fowler v Workers Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 149 at paragraph 41:
- first, the guiding principle in deciding whether to grant leave to reopen is whether or not the interests of justice are better served by allowing or rejecting the application;
- second, in Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256 the High Court stated that different considerations may apply depending upon whether the case is simply one in which the hearing is complete, or one in which reasons for judgement have been delivered and that as to the former situation, the Court said it was difficult to see why the primary consideration should not be that of embarrassment or prejudice to the other side;
- third, in Reid v Brett [2005] VSC 18 , the criteria governing the exercise of the discretionary power to reopen the case to admit further evidence where a hearing has concluded, but judgement has not been delivered, was said to be:
- the further evidence is so material that the interests of justice require its admission;
- the further evidence, if accepted, would most probably affect the result of the case;
- the further evidence could not by reasonable diligence have been discovered earlier; and
- no prejudice would ensue to the other party by reason of the late admission of the further evidence;
- fourth, the reference by the High Court in Smith v New South Wales Bar Association to prejudice to the other party, and the guiding principle of the interests of justice, require account to be taken of the strain litigation imposes on personal litigants; and the prejudice caused by delay in the delivery of an expected judgement at the end of stressful litigation cannot always be measured in terms of money or cured by an order for costs; and
- finally, the interests of justice are served by finality in litigation, particularly where prolonged litigation imposes a strain on personal litigants.
- [14]I consider that the interests of justice are better served by allowing the application to reopen, particularly in circumstances where there is no objection to this course of action from the Respondent.
- [15]I therefore grant leave to the Applicant to reopen her application.
- [16]The Applicant then sought the revocation of the order made by the Commission on 30 January 2025 on the ground that she no longer wished to proceed with the application. The Respondent also consented to the revocation of the order.
- [17]Finally, the Applicant sought that the application be dismissed. This was also consented to by the Respondent.
- [18]I consider that it is in the interests of justice and both parties to make the orders sought by the Applicant and consented to by the Respondent.
Order
- [19]I order as follows:
- Pursuant to s 484(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), leave is granted to the Applicant to re-open the application for payment instead of taking long service leave.
- Pursuant to s 484(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the order of the Commission made on 30 January 2025 be revoked.
- The application for payment instead of taking long service leave is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] See Sch.5 and s 9 of the IR Act.