AB v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2)

[2025] QIRC 212

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

AB v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2025] QIRC 212

PARTIES:  

AB

(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2024/106

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

11 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

11 August 2025

MEMBER:

Pidgeon IC

ORDERS:

1. That [2025] QIRC 113 be amended to remove the Appellant's name, role or position and the region in which he was working.

2.    That when this ex tempore decision is released, it de-identify the Appellant.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – NON-PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – consideration of circumstances where the Commission may exercise discretion to modify a previously published decision – where the Commission

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 s 451
Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 r 97

CASES:

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263

APPEARANCES:

AB, the Appellant, on his own behalf

Reasons for Decision

ex tempore

Introduction

1. Following the release of my decision AB v Workers' Compensation Regulator on 8 May 2025, the Appellant has filed an application in existing proceedings for the suppression of certain identifying information: his full name, his job title which clearly links to his identity, and references to the Queensland South district in which he was employed.

2. The Appellant says that since publication, he has experienced a relapse of a diagnosed mental health disorder and that he is currently under the care of a general practitioner and psychologist.

3. The Appellant's General Practitioner, Dr Phyo KoKo wrote to the Commission on 5 August 2025 stating that after the publication of the decision dealing with his application for non-party disclosure of certain documents, he 'has re-presented with marked symptoms of heightened anxiety, panic episodes, insomnia and low mood'.

4. Dr Phyo KoKo says that in his clinical opinion, '…the original work-related issues and associated proceedings are most likely the primary contributing factors to the Appellant's recent deterioration in mental health'. Dr Phyo KoKo has also recently referred the Appellant for psychiatric and psychological support.

5. The Appellant's application states that he only seeks the order to remove the identifying details for the purposes of the non-party disclosure decision and not the judgment of the Commission in relation to the outcome of the eventual appeals hearing.

6. The Appellant submits that:

   The published decision…grants a procedural application for a Notice of Non-Party Disclosure pursuant to Chapter 7, Part 3 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. The decision does not contain findings or conclusions on the merits of the appellant's case, nor is the appellant's identity necessary to understand the legal reasoning or outcome.

   The appellant's name and job title appear in the published decision, but their inclusion is not essential to the public record. Redacting these identifiers would not impede public access to the rationale or implications of the Commission's order. In contrast, continued publication in its current form will continue to cause the appellant mental health harm, medically documented by their treating health professionals.

7. The Appellant says…