Flori v Carroll - [2022] QIRC 124

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: Flori v Carroll and Anor (No. 2) [2022] QIRC

124

PARTIES:	Flori, Ricky
(Complainant) v
Carroll, Katarina (First Respondent)
and
State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (Second Respondent)
CASE NO.:	AD/2020/115
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	4 April 2022
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
MEMBER:	Merrell DP
DATES OF WRITTEN	Respondents' written submissions filed on
SUBMISSIONS:	25 February 2021 and Complainant's written
submissions filed on 10 March 2022
ORDER:	Document Number 3 to the Complainant's
affidavit filed on 18 January 2022, described as 'Reprisal Deed of Agreement', will not be admitted into evidence.
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - Complainant a former police officer who made a complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission alleging contravention by the Respondents of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010, contending that a decision to defer the issuing of honours and awards to him was a reprisal within the meaning of s 40(1)(b) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 - complaint referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations
Commission - Complainant seeks various orders and other relief under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to remedy alleged reprisal - Complainant filed an affidavit sworn by him in support of his complaint - exhibited to the affidavit is a Deed of Agreement entered into between the Complainant and certain other persons concerning proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal - objection by Respondents to admissibility of Deed of Agreement - Deed of Agreement irrelevant - Deed of Agreement not admissible - order that the Deed of Agreement not admitted into evidence
LEGISLATION:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, s 208
CASES:	Deanne Maree King v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 134
Flori v Carroll and Anor [2022] QIRC 034
APPEARANCES:	The Complainant in person.
Mr S. McLeod QC instructed by Ms R. Fogarty of the State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service), for the First and Second Respondents.

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

The background to this matter is set out in Flori v Carroll and Anor.[1]
[1] [2022] QIRC 034.
Mr Flori filed an affidavit on 18 January 2022 in support of his complaint. Mr Flori intends to rely on that affidavit as his evidence-in-chief at the hearing of his complaint ('Mr Flori's affidavit').[2] The Respondents' have no objection to that course.[3]
[2] T 1-2, ll 33-36. Mr Flori's affidavit filed on 18 January 2022 is the affidavit he filed on 6 December 2021, but
[3] T 1-2, ll 38-44.
However, the Respondents object to the admissibility of one of the exhibits to Mr Flori's affidavit, being a document identified as 'Document Number 3' and described as 'Reprisal Deed of Agreement' ('the Deed').
The parties have filed submissions about the admissibility of the Deed.
This is my decision about the admissibility of the Deed.
For the reasons that follow, the Deed is inadmissible.
The Deed
On its face, the Deed was entered into on 8 May 2015 between Mr Flori and the State of Queensland through the Queensland Police Service ('the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Flori v Carroll

Details

AGLC: Flori v Carroll [2022] QIRC 124
Case: [2022] QIRC 124
Decision Date: 4 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Flori v Carroll involved a former police officer, Flori, who made a complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission alleging that the Respondents, Carroll and others, contravened the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010. Flori contended that a decision to defer the issuing of honours and awards to him was a reprisal under s 40(1)(b) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010. The complaint was referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, where Flori sought various orders and relief under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to remedy the alleged reprisal. Flori filed an affidavit sworn by him in support of his complaint, to which a Deed of Agreement was attached. This Deed of Agreement related to proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Respondents objected to the admissibility of the Deed of Agreement, arguing it was irrelevant to the matter before the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Deed of Agreement was admissible as evidence in the proceedings. The court had to determine if the Deed of Agreement was relevant to the allegations of reprisal made by Flori under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010. Given the specific context of the complaint and the nature of the evidence in question, the court needed to assess the relevance of the Deed of Agreement to the complaint. The court's decision on the admissibility of the Deed of Agreement was critical to the progression of Flori's complaint.

After considering the objections and the arguments presented, the court ruled that the Deed of Agreement was irrelevant to the complaint and, therefore, not admissible as evidence. The court found that the contents of the Deed of Agreement did not pertain to the alleged reprisal concerning the deferral of honours and awards to Flori. Consequently, the court made an order that Document Number 3 to the Complainant's affidavit, described as 'Reprisal Deed of Agreement', would not be admitted into evidence. This decision was based on the court's determination that the Deed of Agreement did not have a bearing on the central issue of the reprisal claim.

The court's order confirmed that Document Number 3, the 'Reprisal Deed of Agreement', would not be admitted into evidence in the proceedings. This ruling effectively excluded the Deed of Agreement from being considered as part of the evidence in the case, thereby limiting the scope of the evidence that Flori could rely on to support his complaint. The decision underscored the importance of relevance in the admissibility of evidence and highlighted the need for evidence to directly pertain to the specific allegations being made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Document Number 3 to the Complainant's

affidavit filed on 18 January 2022, described as 'Reprisal Deed of Agreement', will not be admitted into evidence.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I make the following order: Document Number 3 to the Complainant's affidavit filed on 18 January 2022, described as 'Reprisal Deed of Agreement', will not be admitted into evidence.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.