DRP v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	DRP v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 259
PARTIES:	DRP (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2025/61
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings filed 18 June 2025 Application in existing proceedings filed 19 June 2025
DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2025
MEMBER:	Caddie IC
HEARD AT:	On the papers
ORDERS:	The orders contained in paragraph [155] of these Reasons for Decision.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION WITHIN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS – where there is an objection to a notice of non-party disclosure – where the Appellant in substantive proceedings caused two notices of non-party disclosure to be issued – where two objections were received from the non-party – consideration of arguments that the objections were received out of time – consideration of the relevance of documents – first notice set aside in its entirety – second notice varied.
LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:	Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 39A, Dictionary Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 15AA Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 536, 567 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 rr 28, 64B, 64C, 64D, 64E, 64F, 64G Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) ss 12, 40 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 11, 30, 32, 34, 558, Sch 3 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 7
CASES:	DP World Brisbane Pty Ltd v Rogers & Anor [2014] ICQ 10 Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 25 Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 105 State of Queensland (Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 179 Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 4) [2016] QIRC 75 Reasons for Decision

The Appellant in the substantive proceedings, by way of two Notices of Non-Party Disclosure ('NNPD's') sought production of documents by Energy Queensland Ltd ('Energy Queensland'), a non-party to the proceedings.[1]
[1] The name of the Appellant in substantive proceedings is subject to a de-identification order and is de-identified accordingly.
The substantive matter is an appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator relating to an alleged psychological injury. The appeal is conducted by the Commission as a hearing de novo.[2] The substantive matter will be heard and determined by a different member of the Commission.
[2] Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 558; Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 567.
Energy Queensland objected to the disclosure of all documents sought by both NNPD's issued by the Appellant.
The Appellant filed two applications within existing proceedings seeking that the Commission issue decisions regarding the objections.[3]
[3] Pursuant to rule 64G of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
This Decision relates to whether Energy Queensland is required to produce any or all the documents identified in the NNPD's. In accordance with the power conferred by s 536 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') I have determined to consider and decide both applications together.[4]
[4] Section 536 provides that the Commission may make orders or give directions considered to be just and necessary in relation to interlocutory matters.
As a preliminary matter, the Appellant contends both objections should be dismissed as having been received out of time or in the alternative, they should be dismissed and the stay lifted, or the notices varied only for practicality and not to exclude documents.
Energy Queensland seek that both notices be set aside, or that appropriate orders be made to vary the notices as required.
Background
At all times relevant to the substantive matter, the Appellant was employed by Peoplebank and was on placement with Energy Queensland as part of a labour hire arrangement, working as a Project Manager. The injury is said to have been sustained during this placement and arose from alleged bullying by a co-worker on the Integrated Grid Planning Project.
On 30 May 2025, the Appellant filed a NNPD directed to Energy Queensland seeking that Energy Queensland provide documents said to be relevant to establishing whether any management action was undertaken in a reasonable manner and identifying any instances of workplace conduct that may have contributed to the alleged injury.[5]
[5] NNPD filed 30 May 2025, 2.
The Appellant filed a second NNPD on 2 June 2025 seeking that Energy Queensland also provide documents comprising lists or summaries or otherwise relating to 'management decisions.' [6]
[6] NNPD filed 2 June 2025, 3.
Energy Queensland, by letter from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer on 11 June 2025, objected to the NNPD filed by the Appellant on 2 June 2025 ('the first objection'). On 13 June 2025 Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer sent a second objection to the NNPD filed by the Appellant on 30 May 2025 ('the second objection').
The Appellant filed two applications in existing proceedings, one on 18 June 2025 relevant to the first objection and one on 19 June 2025 related to the second objection.
The Appellant and Energy Queensland filed written submissions pursuant to two Directions Orders issued on 20 June 2025. The Respondent in substantive proceedings declined to make submissions, as was the case with three individually named affected parties.[7]
[7] Relevant to the notice subject to the second objection.
Relevant Principles
NNPD's allow a party engaged in litigation to obtain documents that are directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding, that is in the possession or under the control of a non-party, and is a document the non-party could be required to produce at hearing for the proceeding.[8]
[8] State of Queensland (Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 179, [44] (Merrell DP).
The requirements for issue of NNPD's are set out by the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 ('the Rules'):
64B     Notice requiring non-party production
(1)A party to a proceeding may, by notice of non-party production, require a person who is not party to the proceeding (the non-party) to produce to the party, within 14 days after service of the notice on the non-party, a document—
(a)      directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding; and
(b)      in the possession or under the control of the non-party; and
(c)that is a document the non-party could be required to produce at the hearing for the proceeding.
(2)The party may not require production of a document if there is available to the party another reasonably simple and inexpensive way of proving the matter sought to be proved by the document.
(3)The non-party must comply with the notice but not before the end of 7 days after service of the notice on the non-party.
(4)The requirement, under this rule, for a non-party to produce a document is not an ongoing duty.
64C     Form and service of notice
(1)      A notice must—
(a)state the matter in issue in the proceeding about which the document sought is directly relevant; and
(b)      be in the approved form; and
(c)      be served on the non-party.
(2)However, the party may serve the non-party only after the party has served all other persons who are required to be served under rule 64D.
64D     Others affected by notice
(1)      The party must serve a copy of the notice on—
(a)a person, other than a party and the non-party, about whom information is sought by the notice; and
(b)if the party knows the non-party does not own a document required to be produced—the owner of the document.
(2)      Subrule (1) does not apply if the party's lawyer—
(a)believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person who would otherwise be required to be served under subrule (1) is likely to fabricate evidence or perpetrate fraud if the person becomes aware of the notice; and
(b)has completed a certificate in the approved form stating that the lawyer has that belief and that the interests of justice are likely to be jeopardised if the person were served with the notice.
(3)A certificate by the party's lawyer under subrule (2) must be tendered to the industrial tribunal at the hearing for the proceeding.
(4)Further, subrule (1)(b) does not apply if, after reasonable inquiries, the party can not identify the owner of the document.
(5)The party must write the name and address of anyone who must be served under this    rule on the notice and on all copies of the notice.
The entitlement of a non-party or affected party to object to the attempted production of documents is provided for in rule 64E:
64E     Objection to production
(1)The non-party, or a person who has been served with a copy of the notice under rule 64D, may object to the production of some or all of the documents mentioned in the notice within 7 days after its service or, with the leave of the industrial tribunal, a later time.
(2)Also, another person who would be affected by the notice and who has not been served may object to the production of some or all of the documents mentioned in the notice at any time with the leave of the industrial tribunal.
(3)      The objection must—
(a)      be written; and
(b)      be served on the party; and
(c)if the person objecting (the objector) is not the non-party—be served on the non-party; and
(d)      clearly state the reasons for the objection.
(4)      The reasons may include, but are not limited to, the following—
(a)if the objector is the non-party—the expense and inconvenience likely to be incurred by the non-party in complying with the notice;
(b)the lack of relevance to the proceeding of the documents mentioned in the notice;
(c)      the lack of particularity with which the documents are described;
(d)      a claim of privilege;
(e)      the confidential nature of the documents or their contents;
(f)      the effect production would have on any person;
(g)if the objector was not served with the notice—the fact that the objector should have been served.
Rule 64E does not limit the grounds on which a non-party may object to a NNPP.[9]
[9] Ibid [41] (Merrell DP).
Rule 64F establishes that service of an objection pursuant to rule 64E operates as a stay of the notice.[10]
[10] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
The Appellant seeks the Commission issue a decision pursuant to rule 64G which relevantly provides:
64G Industrial tribunal's decision about objection
(1)Within 7 days after service of an objection under rule 64E, the party may apply to the industrial tribunal for a decision about the objection.
(2)The industrial tribunal may make any order it considers appropriate, including but not limited to, an order –
(a)lifting the stay; or
(b)varying the notice; or
(c)setting aside the notice.
(3)Unless the industrial tribunal otherwise orders, each party to an application to decide an objection must bear the party's own costs of the application.
Davis J, President, when examining the relevance of documents, has stated as follows (citations omitted):[11]
[42] To be relevant, a document does not have to in itself prove the case of the party seeking production of it. It is sufficient if the document tends to prove or disprove an allegation in issue in the proceedings.
[43] Here, a fact in issue between the parties is the content of the conversation of 9 May 2018. Ms Mohr-Edgar asserts that the subject of the conversation was her being moved. Legal Aid says the subject of the conversation was client files. Evidence which tends to disprove the position of one party does, in fact, assist the proof by the other party of its contrary position. That is because, logically, in proving a particular position, a party disproves a contrary position. Put another way, if there are two competing positions and one is disproved, the likelihood of the other being found to be correct is enhanced.
[11] Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 25.
Merrell DP's consideration of what will be 'directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding' is also useful (citations omitted):[12]
A document will be '…directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding', within the meaning of r 64B(1)(a) of the Rules, if the document would tend to prove or disprove an allegation in issue in the proceedings. The expression '…directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding' should not be taken to mean direct evidence as opposed to circumstantial evidence and, for example, a document may not itself prove a fact in issue but it may nonetheless supply circumstantial evidence, which taken, with other evidence, tends to do so. The question is not whether the allegations in the notice of non-party disclosure are directly relevant; it is whether the documents required to be produced are directly relevant to the allegations. Furthermore, the document does not have to in itself prove the case of the party seeking production of it.
[12] State of Queensland (Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 179, [46].
Key principles arising out of the caselaw were summarised by Fisher IC (citations omitted):[13]
[4] The case law relating to disclosure establishes a number of principles including the following which are relevant to the task confronting the Commission:
·A decision of the Commission to order disclosure is a quintessential exercise of discretion.
·To be discoverable a document must relate to the question or issues to be decided by the proceedings.
·A document is relevant if it contains information which enables the party calling for production of the document to advance its own case or damage the case of their adversary or it is a document which may fairly lead to a train of enquiry which may have either of those consequences.
·A party will not be required to produce documents where to do so would be oppressive.
·A request for disclosure must not be in the nature of a fishing expedition in the sense that it is an endeavour not to obtain evidence to support a case but to discover whether there is a case at all.
·Orders for disclosure should not be made for the purpose of enabling a party to attack credibility.
[13] Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No. 4) [2016] QIRC 75.
Preliminary Issue: Were the objections served out of time?
Rule 64E provides that an objection is effective when it is made within seven days of service, or if the Commission grants leave for an objection to be made at a later time.[14] The Appellant asserts both objections were received out of time and asks the Commission to set aside the objections accordingly.
[14] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 r 64E.
Energy Queensland submits that both objections were served within time.[15]
[15] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, 1.
The NNPD subject of the first objection
The Appellant filed the NNPD subject to the first objection in the Industrial Registry on 2 June 2025. The Appellant submits that an Australia Post tracking record confirms the NNPD was delivered to Energy Queensland's PO box on 3 June 2025. Under rule 64E, the objection was due to be served on the Appellant by 10 June 2025. Energy Queensland's Objection was served on 11 June 2025.
Energy Queensland submit their response was served within time for the following reasons:[16]
a. the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) … require service on a corporation at its address for service, or otherwise its head office or its principal or registered office. EQL's registered office is in Townsville:
b on 29 May 2025, in response to email correspondence from the Appellant requesting EQL's address for service for a Form 29, EQL provided the Appellant with its address 26 Reddacliff Street in Newstead;
c the Appellant says [they] posted, rather than delivered personally, the First Notice to the address provided. We assume that is correct, but that Australia Post delivered the First Notice to EQL's PO box instead. As a result, EQL received the First Notice on 4 June 2025, and it is stamped as received on that date.
[16] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, 1.
The Appellant says that the Rules provide that a corporation is to be served at its registered office only if it does not have an address for service. The Appellant submits that 26 Reddacliff Street was provided as the nominated address and that the Appellant went to significant efforts to promptly effect service. Any issue with mail being diverted to a PO box, the Appellant says, are issues within Energy Queensland's control.
The NNPD subject of the second objection
The Appellant filed the NNPD subject of the second objection on 30 May 2025, and on 4 June 2025, used Australia Post to send the NNPD to Energy Queensland. Australia Post records show the NNPD as being delivered on 5 June 2025. The Appellant received the second objection on 13 June 2025. The Appellant asserts this falls outside of the seven-day timeframe prescribed by rule 64E.[17]
[17] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
Energy Queensland states that it received the NNPD on 6 June 2025 and relies on its submissions in relation to the first objection to reiterate that it served both objections within time.[18]
[18] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, 1.
Relevant provisions
Rule 28 of the Rules establishes when service of documents is taken to be effective: (emphasis added)
28      Service of documents
(1)The following are the ways by which a document may be served on the person to be served—
(a)      personal service under rule 29;
…
(f)      posting the document to the relevant address;
Note—
For the meaning of service by post see the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 39A.
…
(3)     In this rule—
relevant address, of a person to be served, means—
(a)      the person's address for service; or
(b)      for an individual who does not have an address for service—
(i)       the individual's last known place of business or residence; or
(ii)if the proceeding is brought by or against an individual in the name of a partnership—the principal or last known place of business of the partnership; or
(c)for a corporation or industrial organisation that does not have an address for service—its head office or its principal or registered office.
Section 39A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 provides as follows (emphasis added):
39A Meaning of service by post etc.
(1) If an Act requires or permits a document to be served by post, service—
(a)may be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting the document as a letter; and
(b)is taken to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless the contrary is proved.
(2)If an Act requires or permits a document to be served by a particular postal method, the requirement or permission is taken to be satisfied if the document is posted by that method or, if that method is not available, by the equivalent, or nearest equivalent, method provided for the time being by Australia Post.
(3)Subsections (1) and (2) apply whether the expression 'deliver', 'give', 'notify', 'send' or 'serve' or another expression is used.
Determination
I agree with the Appellant that there was no requirement for the NNPDs to be served on the Registered Offices of Energy Queensland in Townsville, given the address for service was provided as 26 Reddacliff Street Newstead.[19] I also note the documents provided by the Appellant that Australia Post tracking services verify the notices were delivered at an earlier date than the dates asserted they were received by Energy Queensland.
[19] Affidavit of DRP filed 18 June 2025, Annexure C, Email of 29 May 2025 from Chloe Kernick to DRP; Affidavit of DRP filed 19 June 2025, Annexure C, Email of 29 May 2025 from Chloe Kernick to DRP.

While this would render each objection notice one day out of time, I do not consider it appropriate to simply dismiss the notices or to further delay proceedings by requiring Energy Queensland to seek leave for the late filing at this stage. It is a more effective use of the Commission's resources and in the interests of advancing the substantive proceedings to address the objections raised.
Preliminary Issue: Model Litigant Principles and community expectations of 'public entities'
In addition to addressing the objections, the Appellant contends that Energy Queensland is bound by the Model Litigant Principles with respect to both objections. Energy Queensland say they are not bound as they are not an agency of the state, to which the Appellant replies that as a state-owned corporation, the community expects that Energy Queensland conducts itself 'cooperatively', transparently and fairly. Neither of these factors are relevant to my consideration of the disputed disclosure matters and will not be addressed further.
The grounds of objection
The substantive objections raised by Energy Queensland in relation to both NNPD's can be summarised as based on the relevance of the documents sought, the particularity with which the documents were described in the notices, concerns about confidentiality, and the nature of some of the documents sought as beyond power. I will consider these issues generally before moving to address them in the context of the specific notices and any other specific objections taken by Energy Queensland to identified categories of document contained therein.
(1) Relevance
Documents will be considered 'relevant' to a matter in issue in the proceeding where they 'tend to prove or disprove questions or issues to be determined in the substantive proceeding.'[20]
[20] Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 105; Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, [4].
In this case, the proceedings are at an early stage, and there are no Statements of Facts and Contentions to narrow the consideration of relevance against. This means the issues directly relevant to the determination of the substantive proceedings are those matters outlined in the appeal notice, the decision appealed against and the questions to be determined under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the Workers' Compensation Act') at the fresh hearing of the appeal.
Energy Queensland is not the employer
A key basis for the relevance objection by Energy Queensland is that documents relating to management action cannot be relevant as Energy Queensland is not the employer. They say they were involved in a labour hire arrangement, and while the Appellant performed work at their premises, the employer of the Appellant was the labour hire agency. As such, Energy Queensland objects that any action taken by them can be relevant, as only management action taken by the employer is contemplated by the relevant section of the Workers' Compensation Act.[21] Further to this, Energy Queensland explicitly denies (directly) making the statement to WorkCover referenced by the Appellant in the NNPD about management action.[22]
[21] Namely, s 32.
[22] Objection of Energy Queensland, letter dated 11 June 2025, 3.
In response the Appellant raises 'broader legal definitions of worker' under various Acts,[23] and highlights the 'real substance, practical reality and true nature of the working relationship' test.[24] The 'substance of the working relationship' with Energy Queensland is obscured by a 'technical' reading of the term 'employee'.[25]
[23] Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 7; Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 15AA.
[24] Affidavit of DRP filed 18 June 2025, Schedule, 3.
[25]Affidavit of DRP filed 19 June, Schedule, 4. This was submitted as part of the Form 4 Application relating to the second objection but is also relevant to the first.
The Appellant states that Energy Queensland's contention that their conduct is not relevant to the proceedings is belied by the fact that they responded to WorkCover and did not claim, at the time, that their actions were irrelevant. The documents will assist the Appellant to clarify what management actions or decisions were referred to by Energy Queensland.[26]
[26] Submissions in Reply of Appellant, filed 25 July 2025, [8]-[9].
Procedural fairness and work health and safety obligations arising under different acts
The related requests about procedural fairness within those actions or decisions are objected to on the basis that while procedural fairness would be relevant to proceedings under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ('the Fair Work Act'), this is not a relevant consideration within the substantive proceedings.[27]
[27]Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, 2.
The submissions filed by Energy Queensland on 9 July 2025 echo the substantive objections set out in the letter of 11 June. However, Energy Queensland raises that the affidavit filed by the Appellant alongside the Application in existing proceedings is not reflective of what was requested in the schedule of the notice itself and submit the Appellant has failed to establish why issues of compliance with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) ('the WHS Act') and the Fair Work Act are relevant considerations for the purpose of this proceeding.[28]
[28] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, 2.
In reply, the Appellant argues:[29]
… EQL seeks to narrowly frame its obligations, however, this ignores the broader statutory context. Under the Work Health and Safety Act (2011) (Qld) s 7 and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 15AA, I was a worker or employee of Energy Queensland for all practical and legal purposes. EQL exercised direct supervision and control over my daily work … EQL's conduct, managerial decisions, and internal communications go to the heart of these questions. EQL's own statements during WorkCover's investigation show they were fully aware of my claim and took an active role in responding and reviewing the case. They understand the case, know all the individuals involved, and I raised the matter with my managers and Human Resources before leaving. EQL's attempt to deny their knowledge about my case, and to distance itself from these issues – or to suggest that the documents are not relevant – is inconsistent with the statutory framework that applies to host employers and labour hire workers.
[29] Submissions in Reply of Appellant, filed 25 July 2025, [2].
Section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation Act excludes psychiatric or psychological injuries from being compensable where they arise out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the workers' employment.
Section 30 provides that an 'employer' for the purposes of the Act is a person who engages a worker to perform work.[30] Section 30(3) clarifies that where a worker sustains an injury, the reference to 'employer' is the employer 'out of whose employment, or in the course of whose employment, the injury arose.'[31]
[30] Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
[31] Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
Schedule 3 further specifies:[32]
2 If a labour hire agency or group training organisation arranges for a worker who is a party to a contract (regardless of whether the contract is a contract of service) with the agency or organisation to do work for someone else, the agency or organisation continues to be the worker's employer while the worker does the work for the person under an arrangement made between the agency of the organisation and the other person.
[32] Ibid.
Consideration
The test the Commission applies to determine whether disclosure must be made is whether the documents sought from a Non-Party hold 'direct relevance' to the proceedings. The fact that Energy Queensland is not the employer of the Appellant does not preclude them from holding in their possession, or having control over, documents that may be directly relevant. During the relevant period, the Appellant performed his day-to-day work duties there, and the causative factors for the injury are said to have arisen from the alleged conduct of a directly employed co-worker at Energy Queensland and their management response.[33]
[33] Form 9 Notice of Appeal, filed 25 March 2025; Review Decision of 14 March 2025, 15.
Further, while technically correct that Energy Queensland seemingly made no direct representation to the Regulator or WorkCover, it is clear in the documents provided by the Appellant and in the decision of the Regulator underpinning the appeal that statements provided by Energy Queensland to the employer were provided and relied upon in rejecting the claim. It is clear from the email exchange between Energy Queensland and the employer that the statement was given for the purpose of responding to WorkCover from 'an EQL perspective'.
The actions taken by Energy Queensland in response to the issues raised by the Appellant are directly relevant to the matters to be determined at hearing. How the Appellant's placement at Energy Queensland contributed to the claimed injury and whether any action taken by the management at Energy Queensland in response to the allegations or complaints contributed to the injury or could constitute reasonable management action are real issues in the substantive proceedings. The Regulator relied on representations that came from Energy Queensland and the employer in reaching their decision that the alleged bullying factor could not be substantiated and that any psychological injury did not meet the requisite definition of a compensable injury as it arose from reasonable management action undertaken in a reasonable way. These matters must all be decided afresh in the substantive hearing.
I find that employer status as currently argued across both objection notices in the circumstances relevant to this proceeding is not a barrier to disclosure.
(2) Lack of Particularity
Rule 64E(4)(c) expressly provides that documents sought are to be described with particularity.[34]
[34] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
Energy Queensland submits that for a document to be sufficiently particularised, the nominated party must be able to 'reasonably locate and identify the document'.[35]
[35] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, 2, citing Turner v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 113, [50].
Energy Queensland objects to production of the documents sought on the basis that they lack particularity, stating:[36]
The documents sought are for any "management decisions made by Energy Queensland…which the respondent asserts constitute reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way". The "management decisions" you refer to are not particularised in the Notice, and it is not up to Energy Queensland to have to separately seek to ascertain what management decisions…in order for it to understand what documents you are seeking production of.
Accordingly, Energy Queensland objects to produce the documents you are seeking as it is not clear what documents are being sought for production under the Notice, and the description is far too broad to enable a proper consideration of what may need to be produced.
[36] Objection by Energy Queensland, letter dated 11 June 2025, 4.
The Appellant says that this objection by Energy Queensland lacks merit as the notice relates to 'management decisions' about the Appellant, within a specified timeframe. 'Management decisions' are said to be a 'well-understood category of workplace conduct'.[37]
[37] Affidavit of DRP, filed 18 June 2025, Schedule, 4-5.
The Appellant defines 'management decisions' as:[38]
[38] Affidavit of DRP, filed 18 June 2025, Schedule, 4.
…any formal or informal determinations, instructions, or actions undertaken or endorsed by managerial-level staff at Energy Queensland that, directly or indirectly, affected:
·    My workplace responsibilities, duties or projects;
·    My interactions with staff or managers;
·    Any performance assessment, performance-management and disciplinary process;
·    Any procedural-fairness steps in response to concerns I raised; or
·    Any changes to my work environment, work conditions, or contractor engagement.
Trivial administrative communications…are excluded. The focus is on decisions capable of impacting my working conditions, health, safety, or employment interests during my assignment at Energy Queensland.
The Appellant asserts that, as a government owned corporation, Energy Queensland is expected to document management-level decisions about workers, workplace processes that impact individuals and, in order to be transparent and accountable, record internal decision making. The Appellant states the request is particularised to the extent that is possible, and says that because previous responses on behalf of Energy Queensland to WorkCover were general assertions that did not provide documentation,[39] the request for documents is necessarily broad. The Appellant says it is disingenuous for Energy Queensland to suggest they do not understand what the Appellant requests as they contributed to the responses to WorkCover and understand the particulars of the Workcover claim.[40]
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid 5-6.
In response, Energy Queensland further submit that:[41]
·the NNPD filed by the Appellant failed to define what constitutes a 'management decision';
·the definition of 'management decision' provided by the Appellant in the Form 4 Application (reproduced above) is 'incredibly broad' and may constitute a 'fishing expedition';
·Energy Queensland will face considerable difficulties in complying with the NNPD because it is unclear what searches it must undertake and from whom;
·in both the NNPD and the Form 4 Application the Appellant has not particularised the individual alleged to have made the 'management decisions';
·the form of the document that is the subject of request for production;
·who the creator of the document is; and
·in the event that correspondence is requested, there are no details provided of who the correspondence is said to be exchanged between.
[41] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, 2-3.
Overall, Energy Queensland say that the documents listed in the Schedule of the NNPD's lack the particularity required for Energy Queensland to reasonably locate and identify the documents.[42]
[42] Ibid 3.
In submissions in reply, the Appellant argues that it is 'unreasonable and unjust' for Energy Queensland to claim the documents sought have not been particularised adequately when they have kept responses 'vague and generic' (presumably, the Appellant is referring to responses via the employer to WorkCover). The Appellant states the request is simply for 'the details behind their own statements'.[43]
[43] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 25 July 2025, 2.
The Appellant re-emphasises that the category of documents sought has been particularised as far as possible, given the nature of the claim and the vague responses received.[44]
[44] Ibid.
Consideration
I agree with Energy Queensland there is a general issue regarding particularity in relation to the details of some of the disclosure requests and this is a feature of both notices. These matters will be dealt with in more detail when I consider the specific issues with each of the categories of document later in this Decision.
That does not mean I consider both notices should be dismissed on this ground. As outlined above, I consider there is a legitimate basis for the Appellant to be seeking disclosure of documents from Energy Queensland that relate to the management response that should, as a matter of common sense, have the same organisational meaning as intended by EQL when advising that Energy Queensland "is satisfied that reasonable management action was conducted in a reasonable manner".[45] Lack of particularity is capable of being addressed by varying the notices as appropriate and to the extent the category of documents sought otherwise complies with disclosure requirements.
[45] Affidavit of DRP, filed 19 June 2025, Email to WorkCover from Ms Dandeker dated 12 September 2024.
(3) Confidentiality
Energy Queensland asserts in their objection of 11 June 2025 that the requested documents are confidential in nature, stating:
The disclosure of documents by a non-party should not go beyond what is strictly necessary in the circumstances. In this regard, to the extent the Notice requires production of documents relating to internal decisions about your engagement with Energy Queensland (and it seems…that it does) such records are confidential in nature and their relevance to the Proceeding has not been adequately articulated so as to inform any relevant basis for production.
The Appellant argues that several legislative provisions of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) enshrine statutory rights for individuals to access documents held by government entities:[46]
·section 12, which defines personal information as information or opinions, including information or opinions in a database, whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent or can be reasonably ascertained from the information or opinion; and
·section 40, which the Appellant says confers on individuals the right to access documents of an agency to the extent they contain personal information of the individual, and which the Appellant says 'applies fully' to government owned corporations such as Energy Queensland.
[46] Affidavit of DRP, filed 18 June 2025, Schedule, 6.
It is further argued by the Appellant that:
·unless there exists some specific exemption, Energy Queensland is obliged to provide 'my own personal records';
·assertions that documents are 'confidential' is not sufficient to bar access to them, with the Office of the Information Commissioner noting that agencies must demonstrate the documents meet 'the stringent criteria for exemption' before disclosure will be barred;
·providing the Appellant with access to his own documents is not breaching confidentiality obligations because these are directed at preventing third party disclosures, not to the individual about whom the disclosure relates;
·there is an expectation of transparency on public entities;
·the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) features a pro-disclosure bias, which the Appellant says means that in the absence of clearly identified exemptions, it is in the public interest that disclosure of the documents be made;
·concerns Energy Queensland may have can be addressed by 'controlled disclosure' methods such as redaction of certain parts of documents
·Energy Queensland's objection is practically unjustifiable and undermines procedural fairness and access to justice, particularly when one considers the Appellant is self-represented.
Martin J, President (as his Honour then was) in DP World Brisbane Pty Ltd v Rogers & Anor,[47] explained the following principles to be considered where 'confidentiality' is claimed in respect of documents:
The mere claim that a document to be produced is confidential is not a valid objection to its production. Much of what is disclosed to another party in court or tribunal proceedings of one kind or another may well be confidential. It has been held that where this is the case, "the risk to the confidentiality of information must be tolerated in the interest of the administration of justice." Where specific issues of privacy or a heightened concern for commercial confidentiality, for example, arise, arrangements may be made to ensure that the disclosure of material and information that is made does not go beyond what is strictly necessary in the circumstances. What has been said with regard to confidential information might equally be said to apply in the case of personal information that might in other circumstances be protected by privacy legislation. Accordingly, the mere fact that information to be produced might include "private" information, however defined, is an insufficient ground in law to justify the setting aside of a Notice or to issue a Notice.
[47] [2014] ICQ 10.

It is also well accepted that parties to whom documents are disclosed may not use the documents for any purpose other than the proceedings in question.[48]
[48] Ibid; Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2020] QIRC 70.
Consideration
I adopt the reasoning of Martin J (as his Honour then was) that the mere claim of confidentiality of a document is not a valid objection to production. To the extent the lack of particularity leads to concerns that documents captured may stray into areas that are commercially confidential, this could be remedied by appropriate variation to the notice/s, or through controlled disclosure. I note the points made by the Appellant in relation to rights he may have pursuant to other legislation to access his private information. While this may be the case and provide another basis to reject the confidentiality argument made by Energy Queensland, it is not more persuasive than the general argument that a case would need to be made to justify exclusion on this ground.
I will consider this further in relation to any specific claim of confidentiality made as a bar to production of particular categories of document.
(4) Beyond Power
Energy Queensland's final general ground of objection is that the documents sought, being a 'list or summary of all management decisions' or 'confirmation that they did not happen', goes beyond the production power in rule 64B, which relates only to documents that are within its 'power or control'.[49] Energy Queensland say to produce these would require them to compile lists and essentially create new documents.
[49] Objection of Energy Queensland, letter dated 11 June 2025, 4.
The Appellant addresses this, contending that the request does not seek that Energy Queensland create new documents but 'seeks existing records of management decisions related specifically to him, including standard details such as dates, personnel involved, communication methods, and procedural fairness measures.'[50] The Appellant says it is incumbent upon Energy Queensland as a government owned corporation to maintain records regarding workplace injuries and if the documents do not exist, this may indicate a failure of record keeping on the part of Energy Queensland.
[50] Affidavit of DRP, filed 18 June 2025, Schedule, 9.
In submissions, Energy Queensland contend:
·the documents sought require Energy Queensland to prepare a list or summary, which is not a document in the possession of, or under the control of, Energy Queensland;
·these are not documents which Energy Queensland could be ordered to produce for hearing; and
·the creation of lists and summaries, or the confirmation of facts where records are unavailable, does not meet the definition of 'document' in the Acts Interpretation Act1954 (Qld).[51]
[51] 'Document' is defined in this Act as a 'record of information' however recorded.
In response, the Appellant contends that the documents sought by him are within power for the following reasons:
·the request is directed to lists or summaries currently in the possession or control of Energy Queensland, and if these do not exist, a statutory declaration to this effect;
·the definition of document and electronic document in the Acts Interpretation Act extends to: paper, email, Teams message, database entry, digital note, audio file or any other information;
·requests for 'confirmation that [the action] did not happen' or that documents do not exist is not a request for new documents, rather, it is a 'standard request for an affidavit' that this does not exist, which the Appellant characterises as 'a normal and accepted' part of legal proceedings in Queensland.
'Document' is defined by the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 as follows:[52]
[52] Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Sch 1.
document –
(a)     means a record of information, however recorded; and
(b)    includes –
(i)a thing on which there is writing; and
(ii)a thing on which there are marks, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; and
(iii)an electronic document.
electronic document means –
(a)     a thing from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; or
(b)    a record of information reproduced from a thing mentioned in paragraph (a); or
(c)     a record of information that exists in digital form and is capable of being reproduced, transmitted, stored or duplicated by electronic means.
The Rules envision production of documents that are in existence and are capable of being reproduced. The NNPD cannot be used to compel creation of a document not in existence.[53]
[53] Habibi v Journeaux [2020] QIRC 041.
Consideration
While the Appellant contends the request refers to lists and summaries already in the possession or control of Energy Queensland, the contention is not supported by the way the notices are drafted. There is no production power for documents such as lists or summaries with specific details included, to be created – even if that data could be drawn from various sources within the possession of Energy Queensland. The documents (howsoever defined) must exist within the possession or control of the non-party. The fact that documents or the information 'should exist' is not the requirement. Requests for production of this nature will not be ordered.
I consider the second aspect of the 'out of scope' objection – being the request for affidavits to be created confirming various things did or did not happen – is more nuanced. A request for confirmation by affidavit that the production notice has been fully complied with to the extent that all documents that exist within each category have been supplied; is different to requesting confirmation that non-production establishes facts regarding actions or omissions by Energy Queensland. For example, not disclosing documents that demonstrate procedural fairness was considered, is sought as evidence (to be admitted by affidavit) that procedural fairness was not considered, rather than demonstrating no document meeting that criteria existed. Any inference or direct conclusion to be drawn regarding that fact is a matter for the substantive proceeding. Requiring admissions by affidavit is not the role of a disclosure notice. Rather, they are matters to be adduced and examined at hearing through oral evidence, including the evidence to be given by the Appellant himself.
The Commission making an order requiring a non-party to file an affidavit, where any or all of the documents do not exist or are unable to be located, outlining the search undertaken and the outcome of that search, is not unusual and is within the power of the Commission.[54]
[54] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 r 64G (2).
The Notices Themselves
Having regard to my findings in relation to the general issues raised above I will now consider the details of each of the notices subject to objection.
The NNPD subject to the first objection
The categories and description of the documents relevant to the first objection is set out as follows:
1. A list or summary of all management decisions made by Energy Queensland in relation to DRP between 1 February and 7 March 2024, which the respondent asserts constitute reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable way. This includes, for each decision:
-The date of the decision and the person(s) involved in making it;
-A description of the decision (e.g. changes to duties, performance management, etc…)
-The reason or basis for the decision;
-The method and date of communication of the decision to DRP;
-Any evidence that procedural fairness was considered, including whether DRP was notified of concerns, given an opportunity to respond, or advised of a right to a support person. If none example is provided, confirmation that they did not happen (sic).
2. A list or summary of all management decisions made by Energy Queensland in relation to DRP between 8 March and 26 June 2024, which the respondent asserts constitute reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable way. This includes, for each decision the same details requested in Document number 1. If none example is provided, confirmation that they did not happen (sic).
3. Any record regarding the decisions listed in the documents number 1 and number 2.
The NNPD asserted the relevance of the requested documents was as follows:[55]
The claim concerns psychological injury allegedly sustained during the applicant's employment with Energy Queensland between February and March 2024, due to workplace bullying and exclusion while working as Project Manager for the Integrated Grid Planning Project
Energy Queensland replied to Workcover: Energy Queensland is satisfied that Reasonable management action was conducted in a reasonable manner.
Whether any management actions were in fact taken during the relevant period (1 February to 7 March 2024); and whether those actions were supported by a reasonable process and conducted with procedural fairness.
Specifically, the documents requested include a list or summary of management decisions made concerning the applicant, the dates they were made, who made them, the reasons for the decisions, and how they were communicated. This information is necessary to assess whether the actions relied on by the respondent meet the threshold of "reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable way" under the relevant legislation.
[55] Notice of Non-Party Disclosure, filed by Appellant on 2 June 2025, 2.
The Appellant further explains the alleged relevance of the documents as follows:[56]
·the requested documents relate to the time period where the Appellant allegedly sustained the injury;
·the documents sought relate to management decisions about the Appellant which are relevant to establishing whether the injury arose out of or in the course of employment; and
·the documents will furnish the Appellant with information about the 'causation, foreseeability and procedural handling of the injury context'.
[56] Affidavit of DRP, filed 18 June 2025, Schedule, 2-3.
Consideration
I consider the information proposed to be included in the lists and summaries sought in this notice would be relevant to the matters to be decided in the substantive proceeding. The employer status of the non-party does not impact the relevance of the subject matter for the purpose of disclosure. I consider there is overlap between the information sought to be summarised in this notice and documents sought in the notice subject to the second objection.
While the subject matter is relevant, this notice at category 1 and 2, objectively requires documents to be created in the form of lists and summaries containing itemised details. It is a request for information rather than a request to disclose documents within the possession or control of Energy Queensland. As determined above those categories do not comply with disclosure requirements and are set aside. Category 3 is consequential to categories 1 and 2 and overlaps with documents sought in the other Notice. On this basis category 3 is also set aside. This disposes of the entire NNPD relevant to the first objection notice and application within proceedings filed on 18 June 2025.
Order to set aside NNPD subject to the first objection
The NNPD subject to the first objection is set aside. The application within proceedings filed 18 June 2025 is dismissed.
The NNPD subject to the second objection
The list of documents sought in the NNPD subject to the second objection comprises 20 categories as follows:
1.       List of appointments and meetings from Alrun Wigan's diary between 15^th February and 8^th March 2024, including their topics, body of the invitation, participants invited to the meetings, details about attendance of participants from MS Teams when available, recordings and transcripts when available, and meeting notes or minutes.
2.      List of appointments and meetings from Geoff Tainton and Darren Volling's diary between 19^th February and 8^th March 2024, including their topics, body of the invitation, participants invited to the meetings, details about attendance of participants from MS Teams when available, recordings and transcripts when available, and meeting minutes, related to the Integrated Grid Planning project or DRP.
3.       Copy of any documents (emails, calendar invites, texts, etc…) where DRP was notified of meetings where a management action was going to be discussed between 1^st February 2024 and 7^th March 2024. For meeting invitations, include topic of the invitations, body of the invitations, participants, details about attendance, meeting minutes, and reference to have a support person. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
4.       Copy of any documents (emails, calendar invites, texts, etc…) where DRP was advised he could bring a support person to any meeting about management actions between 1^st February 2024 and 7^th March 2024. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
5.       Details about any formal performance review to DRP between 1^st February 2024 and 8^th March 2024, including copies, invitations, minutes, documentation reviewed and steps followed to ensure procedural fairness, as well as any formal performance management plans or improvement plans issued to him. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
6.       Copy of Energy Queensland's internal procedures or policies that apply to performance management on 7^th March 2024.

7.       Any communication where DRP was asked to respond to any accusation done about his performance in his role as Project Manager in the Integrated Grid Planning Project between 7^th March 2024 and 9^th March 2024. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
8.       Any communication where any procedural fairness was considered about the decision on 8^th March 2024 to reassign DRP, and whether it was considered or discussed giving him an opportunity to respond prior to making the decision on 8^th March 2024. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
9.       Documents and communications related to any escalations or complaints done by DRP about the safety in his workplace, including emails, instant messages (MS Teams, etc…), reports, meeting notes, HR communications, EAP referrals, between 23^rd February 2024 and 18^th March 2024. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
10.     Any documentation showing how the psychological workplace events raised by DRP were managed and acknowledged between 23^rd February 2024 and 18^th March 2024 (i.e. referrals to EAP, support plans, risk assessments, follow ups…). If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
11.     Documents related to any follow up regarding DRP's mental health between 19^th March 2024 and 26^th June 2024. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
12.     Copies of Energy Queensland's policies and procedures on 7^th March 2024 relating to bullying, harassment, psychological safety, and complaints handling.
13.     Any documentation of an evaluation of the workplace conditions after DRP's complaints between 23^rd February and 26^th June 2024. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
14.     Documents related to any follow up regarding DRP's mental health between 19^th March 2024 and 26^th June 2024. If none is provided, confirmation that they did not happen.
15.     Copies of all current Energy Queensland policies and procedures between on 7^th March relating to (sic):
1.   Bullying and harassment,
2.   Psychological health and safety,
3.   Complaints management,
4.   Performance management, including any guidance provided to management about their obligations.

16.     Details and documentation about any investigation, risk assessment, interventions or similar done by Energy Queensland about DRP's bullying allegations, procedure followed, and how DRP was involved during the process between 23^rd February and 18^th March.
17.     Details about any interim support to DRP while the investigation cited in the item number 16 were conducted.
18.     Emails, instant messages conversations (MS Teams, etc), and text messages from and to (including in copy cc) Alrun Wigand related to DRP or his role as Project Manager in the Integrated Grid Planning project between 18^th February and 8^th March 2024. Exclude emails and conversations where D is a participant or copied.
19.     Emails, instant messages conversations (MS Teams, etc), and text messages from and to (including in copy cc) Darren Volling related to Alrun Wigand, DRP or his role as Project Manager in the Integrated Grid Planning project between 18^th February and 8^th March 2024. Exclude emails and conversations where DRP is a participant or copied.
20.     All emails, instant messages (Teams, etc), and text messages from and to (including in copy cc) Geoff Tainton related to Alrun Wigand, DRP or his role as Project Manager in the Integrated Grid Planning project between 18^th February and 8^th March 2024. Exclude emails and conversations where DRP is a participant or copied.

The NNPD explains the relevance of the requested documents as follows:[57]
[57] Notice of Non-Party Disclosure, filed by Appellant on 30 May 2025, 2.
…The claim concerns psychological injury allegedly sustained during the applicant's employment with Energy Queensland between February and March 2024, due to workplace bullying and exclusion while working as Project Manager…
Energy Queensland replied to Workcover: DRP had raised some challenges directly with Energy Queensland, who looked into his concerns. Energy Queensland concluded the issues raised were actually related to the unique structure of the way they do their project management work.
and: There is no evidence of being excluded from meetings that would be appropriate for DRP to attend in his capacity of Project Manager.
and: Energy Queensland is satisfied that Reasonable management action was conducted in a reasonable manner.
The documents sought are directly relevant to:
1.   Establishing whether any such management action was undertaken
2.   Determining whether such action, if any, was carried out in a reasonable manner
3.   Identifying additional evidence of conduct by certain individuals (including bullying, exclusion, undermining and adverse communication) that may have contributed to the psychological injury.
This includes communications and meeting records the applicant was not privy to at the time, but which may reflect harmful or inappropriate behaviour directed toward the applicant. The documents will also assist in assessing whether Energy Queensland followed its own procedures relating to psychological safety and employee wellbeing, and performance of management actions.
Energy Queensland generally objects to this notice based on the four grounds already considered.
Energy Queensland submit that the documents described by the Appellant as going towards 'identifying additional evidence of conduct by certain individuals' and 'communications and meeting records the applicant was not privy to at the time, but which may reflect harmful or inappropriate behaviour' are likely irrelevant:[58]
You have not stated what individuals contributed to the alleged psychological injury and how, nor how information you were not privy to at the time could have contributed to any alleged injury. As such you have not articulated how any of the documents sought are directly relevant to the proceedings.
[58] Objection of Energy Queensland, letter dated 13 June 2025, 6.
The Appellant reiterates that the documents sought are directly relevant as the proposed documents relate to the Appellant, fall within clearly defined timeframes and pertain to the legal test of whether the injury was sustained in the course of, or arising out of, the employment.
Specific objections

Both parties have made submissions in relation to each category of document. I will consider each of these categories in turn or grouped together as appropriate.
Category 1
Energy Queensland contends the documents sought are too broad, and lack the particularity required to establish relevance to the proceedings. Even following the Appellant's explanation that the documents sought are documents relating to the Grid Planning Project, Energy Queensland submits this is too broad and that the information is confidential to both employees and business operations of Energy Queensland. These documents appear to be a 'fishing expedition', particularly given that the Appellant has in his possession and has provided the Respondent with calendar examples of the alleged behaviour.[59]
[59] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, 2, [8]-[9].
The Appellant highlights an alleged inconsistency between Energy Queensland's original assertion there was no basis to assume they are evidence of exclusion from meetings, and the above submission that because the Appellant has some evidence of exclusion, that further disclosure is unnecessary. The Appellant says that full production of meeting records is required to 'test the accuracy of their assertion'.[60]
[60] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 25 July 2025, [13].
The Appellant argues that the 'blanket assertion of confidentiality' from Energy Queensland is unsubstantiated and says that Energy Queensland has failed to identify what is confidential and why this should prevent disclosure.[61]
[61] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 25 July 2025, [16].
Consideration
Alleged bullying by Ms Wigand, including by exclusion from meetings related to the Grid Planning Project is directly relevant to the determination of mechanism of injury within the substantive proceedings. The Appellant seeking to identify other project meetings from which he may have been excluded, is a reasonable line of enquiry that would tend to prove a course of conduct. That is not a fishing expedition.
The documents in this category are to capture meetings scheduled in Ms Wigand's calendar during a finite period of 15 February - 8 March 2024 (3 weeks and 1 day) related to the Grid Planning Project that the Appellant was not invited to. While this category seeks the appointments/meetings to be provided as a list, it should not be set aside as the disclosable information exists in a form that can be produced. That is a copy of the electronic calendar for Ms Wigand for the relevant period. While the document will contain information about meetings beyond the specific request and/or not related to the Grid Planning Project that does not prevent the document's disclosure.
While I consider the scope of the consequential disclosure request to be too broad, I am satisfied that further documents related to the relevant meetings can be provided and would be able to be located. I order accordingly.
Order for production – Document category 1

I direct Energy Queensland to disclose Ms Wigand's electronic diary for the period commencing 15 February 2024 up to and including 8 March 2024.
For each scheduled meeting related to the Grid Planning Project that the Appellant was not invited to attend, the following documents are also to be disclosed:
·Copy of the electronic meeting invitation sent to each proposed participant including the body of the invitation; (if the invitation was sent to a group email address a copy of the document that contains the members of the group)
·Copy of the meeting agenda (If not contained within the meeting invitation above)
·Copy of meeting notes or minutes kept as the record of the meeting
·If not contained within the minutes or notes, any record of attendance
To the extent this material contains information that is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of these proceedings.
The request for the remainder of documents in this category is set aside.

Category 2

Energy Queensland relies on its submissions in relation to category 1, and highlights that as this appears to be seeking the creation of a list, this is beyond the production power.[62] The Appellant broadly contends that seeking confirmation that events or action did not occur or that relevant records cannot be found cannot be characterised as a fishing expedition because of credible concerns that relevant information may not have been disclosed.[63]
[62] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, [8]-[10].
[63] Submissions in Reply of Appellant, filed 25 July 2025, [6].
Consideration
Management response and handling of the complaints and issues raised by the Appellant is relevant to mechanism of injury and other matters to be determined in the Appeal. Based on the available material before the Commission, Geoff Tainton and Darren Volling were directly involved in discussions regarding the issues raised by the Appellant.
The documents in this category are to capture meetings scheduled in Mr Tainton's and Mr Volling's calendar during the period of 19 February and 8 March 2024 (2 weeks and five days) related to the Grid Planning Project and/or the Appellant.
While this category seeks the appointments/meetings to be provided as a list, it should not be set aside as the disclosable information exists in a document that can be produced. That is a copy of the electronic calendar for Mr Volling and Mr Tainton for the relevant period. While the documents will contain information about meetings beyond the specific request and/or not related to the Grid Planning Project or the Appellant that does not prevent the document's disclosure.
Order for production of Category 2
I direct Energy Queensland to disclose Mr Volling's and Mr Tainton's electronic diaries for the period commencing 19 February 2024 up to and including 8 March 2024.
For each meeting related to the Grid Planning Project and/or the Appellant the following documents are to be disclosed.
·Copy of the electronic meeting invitation sent to each proposed participant including the body of the invitation; (if the invitation was sent to a group email address a copy of the document that contains the members of the group)
·Copy of the meeting agenda (If not contained within the meeting invitation above)
·Copy of meeting notes or minutes kept as the record of the meeting
·If not contained within the minutes or notes, any record of attendance
To the extent this material contains information that is said to be confidential I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of these proceedings.
The request for the remainder of documents in this category is set aside.
Category 3
Energy Queensland state the following key elements of the request have not been particularised and it is therefore too broad:[64]
·Details of the 'management actions' undertaken by Energy Queensland. Energy Queensland also submit that the definition under the WHS Act provided by the Appellant is only relevant to the actions of the employer.
·The individual who is alleged to have taken 'management actions'.
·Details of who created the particular documents.
·If the document forms part of correspondence, who the correspondence is being exchanged between.
[64] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, [11] – [12].
Energy Queensland also submit that the request to 'provide confirmation' where these records are not available' is beyond the production power.
Consideration
In submissions the Appellant indicates he has sought production of these documents as a means to confirm they do not exist. That is misguided. The Appellant is objectively well placed to know whether any such meeting occurred without the need to seek production from a non-party. These are matters the Appellant is able to plead and give direct evidence about from his own knowledge and also through the examination of witnesses.
Category 3 is set aside
Category 3 of the NNPD is set aside.
Categories 4, 5 and 7
Categories 4, 5 and 7 are similarly afflicted. Objectively the Appellant is well placed to know whether he was advised he could bring a support person, to the meeting/s contemplated in category 3. Further, whether he was invited to participate in a performance review discussion or received any request to respond to any accusation about his performance as the Project Manager. In submissions the Appellant suggests these things did not occur. On that basis I will also set categories 4, 5 and 7 aside.
Categories 4, 5 and 7 are set aside.
Category 8
Category 8 is objected to as being a fishing expedition, as lacking in particularity, and as being irrelevant because it seeks information about procedural fairness by Energy Queensland when Energy Queensland was not the employer of the Appellant. Energy Queensland also raises that where documents relate to internal discussions within Energy Queensland during the Appellant's placement, these are confidential and not relevant to the matters in issue.[65]
[65] Ibid [17].
Consideration
This request relates to relevant matters outside of the Appellant's own knowledge. For the reasons outlined earlier in this Decision, Energy Queensland cannot reasonably rely on the definition of employer relevant to the test in s 32(5)(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act to argue everything that occurred under their watch is not relevant and/or confidential. Energy Queensland in this matter seem to contend they owed no duty at all to the Appellant.
This category of document specifically relates to the decision taken by Energy Queensland to remove the Appellant as Project Manager from the Integrated Grid Management Project and documents relevant to the process of decision-making leading to the communication of the decision to him on 8 March 2024. While there is overlap with the broader requests in categories 18, 19 and 20, this category is about communications (emails, text message, memoranda) between Energy Queensland management about the process including the decision not to provide the Appellant an opportunity to be heard regarding the outcome.
The affected parties to this notice logically relevant to this category are Mr Volling and Mr Tainton. I will vary the request accordingly.
Order for production – Category 8
I direct Energy Queensland to disclose emails, text messages, memoranda or other communication from or to (including as a copied recipient) Mr Tainton and/or Mr Volling about the decision to reassign the Appellant to a different project and the process including the decision not to provide the Appellant an opportunity to be consulted regarding the decision.
To the extent this material contains information that is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of these proceedings.

Category 6, 12 and 15

Categories 6, 12 and 15 are objected to on the basis that they are irrelevant in circumstances where Energy Queensland was not the employer of the Appellant.[66] In reply, the Appellant contends these documents are directly relevant to determining whether appropriate procedures were followed in the period leading up to his injury, and that they are 'essential to assess how EQL's internal response contributed to my injury'.[67]
[66] Ibid, [4]; [15]; [21].
[67] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 25 July 2025, [18].
Consideration
As already found, I do not agree that employer status precludes any actions by Energy Queensland as being relevant to the proceedings. On that basis I do not agree with their blanket objection. I do note that category 15 includes and can replace categories 6 and 12 entirely.
Order for production - Category 15
Energy Queensland is directed to disclose Energy Queensland policies and procedures, current as of 7 March 2024 relating to:
·Bullying and harassment
·Psychological health and safety
·Complaints management
·Performance management
Categories 6 and 12 are set aside.
Categories 9, 10, 11, and 13 (14 is a duplicate of 11)
The above categories are objected to on the basis they fail to identify the 'escalations', 'complaints', 'psychological workplace events' and 'workplace conditions' raised by the Appellant, and between whom the communication/documents were exchanged. Energy Queensland argues this renders this request beyond power and lacking particularity.[68] The Appellant generally argues assumed knowledge based on representations made to WorkCover on behalf of Energy Queensland. The Appellant also contends he is not aware from his own knowledge of any follow-up so the request is to identify documents related to action undertaken to support him from a health and safety or psychological safety perspective, that he is not aware of.
[68] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, [18]; [19]; [20]; [22].
Consideration
It is technically correct that the Appellant has not particularised the terms objected to by Energy Queensland. That is not the same as Energy Queensland not being aware of the issues or who the management representatives were with direct involvement in responding to them. However, for the reasons espoused in relation to categories 4, 5 and 7, the Appellant is objectively well placed to know what follow up was taken with him, including referrals to EAP. These requests have the characteristic of seeking documents the Appellant believes do not exist and therefore cannot be in the possession or control of Energy Queensland.
Categories 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are set aside.
Categories 16 and 17
The request to provide 'details' is said to be beyond the production power. Energy Queensland otherwise submit that this is a fishing expedition that is not particularised.[69]
[69] Ibid [24]; [25].
Consideration
I agree that a request only to disclose details is a request for information rather than documents believed to be in existence. That is the case in terms of category 17. Category 16 appropriately requests documents in addition to 'details'.
Material before the Commission suggests a review was undertaken rather than a formal investigation into the issues raised by the Appellant. Documents about the investigation or review (whether formal or not) are directly relevant to matters to be decided in the appeal and should be disclosed. The Appellant is in a position to already know whether he was involved in the review/investigation process so it seems likely this aspect of the category is requested for the purpose of demonstrating that did not occur and is not appropriate. Category 16 will be varied and category 17 is set aside.
Order for production - category 16
Energy Queensland is directed to produce all documents related to the review and/or investigation of issues raised by the Appellant in relation to alleged conduct of Ms Wigand raised verbally in February 2024 and put in writing on 6 March 2024. The documents requested are from the period on and from 23 February 2024 and up to and including 18 March 2024 that relate to any investigation, risk assessment, interventions or anything similar undertaken by Energy Queensland into allegations of inappropriate conduct made by the Appellant.
To the extent any or all of this material is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of this appeal.

Category 17 is set aside.

Categories 18, 19 and 20

Energy Queensland say the documents appear to relate to internal discussions held while the Appellant was placed at Energy Queensland, which are submitted to be irrelevant, confidential and a 'fishing expedition'.
The Appellant refers to the provision of a new email from Energy Queensland to argue that this email evidences that Energy Queensland was aware of the particulars of the claim,[70] and undermines any claim by Energy Queensland that they do not understand what is sought, or that the requests lack particularity.[71]
[70] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 25 July 2025.
[71] Submissions of Energy Queensland, filed 9 July 2025, [7].
The Appellant contends that discussions held with Geoff Tainton and Darren Volling between 23 February 2024 and 8 March 2024 made clear that 'numerous meetings and conversations occurred regarding my situation.'[72] The Appellant says any request for documents related to these individuals is 'based on certainty that my case was discussed and escalated within Energy Queensland' and cannot be a fishing expedition.
[72] Ibid [8].
Consideration
I do not agree with Energy Queensland.
Even at this early stage, there is material before the Commission that supports the contention that the issues subject to the complaint were raised with Energy Queensland representatives verbally and in writing. There is material to support the issues were raised by management representatives with the subject officer of the complaint. Finally, there is material to confirm that Energy Queensland provided information (via the Employer) to WorkCover in relation to their response and conclusions. For example, that the issues subject to the complaint arose from the project management approach at Energy Queensland (suggesting a conclusion about the particulars having been made);[73] that no investigation occurred but there was some kind of review because the Appellant had not formalised the complaint and left employment before that could occur;[74] finally that Energy Queensland was satisfied it had taken reasonable management action in a reasonable way.
[73] Affidavit of DRP filed 19 June 2025, Annexure; Email of 8 August 2024 from Abbey Dandeker, Team Leader of Injury Management at RGF Staffing to Annalisa Croke, HR Manager at Energy Queensland, and Sam Willett of RGF Staffing, 2; Annexure, Email of 8 August 2024 from Annalisa Croke, HR Manager at Energy Queensland to Abbey Dandeker, Team Leader of Injury Management at RGF Staffing.
[74] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 25 July 2025, Annexure, Email of 12 September 2024 from Annalisa Croke, HR Advisor at Energy Queensland, to Tenille Von Ahlefeldt, National Workers Compensation Manager at RGF Staffing, 2.
Documents about the response represents a reasonable line of enquiry in those circumstances and capable of being understood and located. While determination of what constitutes 'reasonable' in the context of any management response are matters for the ultimate decision-maker in substantive proceedings, the assertions by Energy Queensland from their perspective, speaks to a response having happened.
The categories in the NNPD identify the affected party relevant to each request, the timeframe and types of document to be disclosed.
Order for production of documents - categories 18, 19 and 20
Energy Queensland is directed to produce all documents contained within category 18, 19 and 20 of the NNPD subject to the second objection notice.
To the extent any or all this material is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of this appeal.
Summary of variations to this notice
I have determined categories 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17 are set aside entirely.
Categories 1, 2, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 are ordered in the terms as set out below.
Category 1:
·I direct Energy Queensland to disclose Ms Wigand's electronic diary for the period commencing 15 February 2024 up to and including 8 March 2024.
·For each scheduled meeting relating to the Grid Planning Project that the Appellant was not invited to attend, the following documents are to be disclosed:
oCopy of the electronic meeting invitation sent to each proposed participant including the body of the invitation; (if the invitation was sent to a group email address a copy of the document that contains the members of the group);
oCopy of the meeting agenda (if not contained within the meeting invitation above)
oCopy of meeting notes or minutes kept as the record of the meeting
oIf not contained within the minutes or notes, any record of attendance
·To the extent this material contains information that is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of these proceedings.
·The request for the remainder of documents in this category is set aside.

Category 2:
·I direct Energy Queensland to disclose Mr Volling's and Mr Tainton's electronic diaries for the period commencing 19 February 2024 up to and including 8 March 2024.
·For each meeting related to the Grid Planning Project and/or the Appellant the following documents are to be disclosed:
oCopy of the electronic meeting invitation sent to each proposed participant including the body of the invitation; (if the invitation was sent to a group email address a copy of the document that contains the members of the group)
oCopy of the meeting agenda (if not contained within the meeting invitation above)
oCopy of meeting notes or minutes kept as the record of the meeting
o If not contained within the minutes or notes, any record of attendance
·To the extent this material contains information that is said to be confidential I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of these proceedings.
·The request for the remainder of documents in this category is set aside.
Category 8:
·I direct Energy Queensland to disclose emails, text messages, memoranda or other communication from or to (including as a copied recipient) Mr Tainton and/or Mr Volling about the decision to reassign the Appellant to a different project and the process including the decision not to provide the Appellant an opportunity to be consulted regarding the decision.
·To the extent this material contains information that is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of these proceedings.
Category 15:
·Energy Queensland is directed to disclose Energy Queensland policies and procedures, current as of 7 March 2024, relating to:
oBullying and harassment
oPsychological health and safety
oComplaints management
oPerformance management
Category 16:
·Energy Queensland is directed to produce all documents related to the review and/or investigation of issues raised by the Appellant in relation to alleged conduct of Ms Wigand raised verbally in February 2024 and put in writing on 6 March 2024. The documents requested are from the period on and from 23 February 2024 and up to and including 18 March 2024 that relate to any investigation, risk assessment, interventions or anything similar undertaken by Energy Queensland into allegations of inappropriate conduct made by the Appellant.
·To the extent any or all of this material is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of this appeal.
Category 18:
·Energy Queensland is directed to produce all documents contained within category 18 of the NNPD subject to the second objection notice.
·To the extent any or all this material is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of this appeal.
Category 19:
·Energy Queensland is directed to produce all documents contained within category 19 of the NNPD subject to the second objection notice.
·To the extent any or all this material is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of this appeal.
Category 20:
·Energy Queensland is directed to produce all documents contained within category 20 of the NNPD subject to the second objection notice.
·To the extent any or all this material is said to be confidential, I direct that the documents be produced to the Appellant on the basis that they are used solely for the purpose of this appeal.
If any or all of the documents set out within the varied notice to produce do not exist or are unable to be located, the relevant officer of Energy Queensland must file an affidavit outlining the search that was undertaken and the outcome of that search.
I order accordingly.
Orders
1.       The Application within existing proceedings filed 18 June 2025 is dismissed.
2.       The NNPD dated 2 June 2025 subject to the first objection is set aside entirely.
3.       The Application within existing proceedings filed 19 June 2025 is allowed in part.
4.       The NNPD dated 30 May 2025 subject to the second objection is varied as set out in paragraphs [144] to [155] of this Decision.
5.       Energy Queensland is ordered to comply with the varied order to disclose set out in paragraphs [144] to [156] of this Decision within 14 days of the date of this Decision.
6.       If any or all the documents set out in the varied notice to produce do not exist or are unable to be located, the relevant officer of Energy Queensland must file an affidavit outlining the search that was undertaken and the outcome of that search.
7.       Parties are to bear their own costs.

[2025] QIRC 259

30 September 2025