G K v Dovedeen Pty Ltd

[2011] QCAT 441

CITATION: G K v Dovedeen Pty Ltd and Anor [2011] QCAT 441

PARTIES: Applicant	G K
v
Dovedeen Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Joan Hartley (Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:   ADL134-10

MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 22 March 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     Leave is not granted to the respondents to be legally represented in this proceeding up until and including the compulsory conference.

CATCHWORDS: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – leave sought for legal representation  
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 43

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties under section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 29 June 2010 GK was told by the manageress of a motel in regional Queensland that she could not stay at that motel the next time she came to the town.  GK complains that it was made clear to her that the decision to refuse her future accommodation was because she was a sex worker.  GK had been staying at that motel at various times over a two year period to operate her business as a sex worker from the motel. 

2. The complaint has been referred by the Anti-Discrimination Commission to QCAT for determination.  The respondents sought leave in February 2011 to be legally represented in the proceeding.  GK opposed leave being granted.

3. Parties in proceedings in QCAT are expected to represent themselves unless the interests of justice require otherwise.[1]  QCAT must in each case determine whether the particular circumstances of the case give rise to the need for legal representation to respond to the interests of justice.

   [1] Section 43(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

4. QCAT has the responsibility of resolving disputes between parties that have been referred to it by the Commission.  QCAT must deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick.[2]  GK’s dispute with the respondents was clearly set out in her complaint.      

   [2] Section 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

5. The respondents submitted that there are serious legal issues that would need to be determined by QCAT after hearing legal arguments.  That is correct but the first stage of the dispute resolution process within QCAT is not an adjudication process but consists of the holding of a compulsory conference.  The parties participating in a compulsory conference are expected to engage directly with each other in a genuine attempt to reach a resolution of the dispute.    

6. The purposes of the conference, set out in section 69 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, focus on identifying the issues in dispute, promoting settlement of the dispute, identifying questions of fact and law to be decided by QCAT and to enable the member conducting the conference to make directions about the further conduct of the proceeding.  The purposes of the conference can in many cases be more readily and properly achieved by the parties being actively involved in the conference and not by choosing to speak only through their legal representatives.  I was satisfied that this was such a case.

7. I was satisfied that the interests of justice support this matter being dealt with at the conference stage in a way that is accessible to the parties, economical and informal resulting in a fair and just process.  The conference is a confidential forum when practical solutions should be raised by the parties to solve their dispute rather than having a solution imposed on them by the tribunal.  I was not satisfied by the submissions of the respondents that the interests of justice required the parties to be legally represented at the conference. 

8. This case is one involving legal complexities.  If the complaint proceeds to a hearing, there will be the need for considerable analysis of the law.  Before that stage was reached, it was appropriate and fair to provide the parties with an opportunity to resolve their dispute directly and without burdening the resolution process with complicated legal argument so that the focus of discussion was on practical resolution and not on reconciling conflicting legal arguments. 

9. As the complaint involves complex legal issues, grounds could well later be established for the granting of leave for legal representation for the hearing stage of this proceeding.  With recognition that the interests of justice may be served in different ways depending on the particular stage of the proceeding, leave was refused for legally representation up to and including the compulsory conference only.  The ability of the parties to make an application after the end of the compulsory conference was preserved.