Dorman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

In Dorman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), the applicant, Ms Dorman, sought reinstatement following her dismissal for non-compliance with Health Employment Directive 12/21, which required COVID-19 vaccination. The matter was set for hearing, but on the weekend prior to the hearing, Ms Dorman requested to discontinue the proceedings. The respondent, Queensland Health, objected to the discontinuation. Following the discontinuation, Queensland Health applied for its costs under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). The court was required to determine whether to award costs against the applicant, Ms Dorman, or her representative, Mr Gareth Rogers, and if so, the extent of those costs.

The court considered the principles governing the award of costs under s 545 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), drawing on prior case law such as Kelsey v Logan City Council & Ors and Dawson v State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet). It held that the starting point is that each party bears their own costs, but a discretion to award costs arises if certain jurisdictional facts are established. The court assessed whether the application was commenced vexatiously or without reasonable cause, and whether it would have been reasonably apparent to the applicant that their claim had no reasonable prospects of success. The court found that Mr Rogers's representation on a 'charitable basis' and his assertion of not acting as a lawyer until a certain date were irrelevant for the purposes of costs liability.

The court ordered the proceedings discontinued and directed that Mr Rogers pay the respondent's costs in the amount of $9,062.00 within 14 days of the date of the order. Additionally, the court directed the Industrial Registrar to forward a copy of the decision to the Legal Services Commissioner for her consideration.