Gordon v Gap Studio Brisbane Pty Ltd - [2022] QIRC 324

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: PARTIES:	Gordon v GAP Studio Brisbane Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QIRC 324 Gordon, Catherine (Complainant) v GAP Studio Brisbane Pty Ltd (First Respondent) & Hallett, David (Second Respondent)
CASE NO:	AD/2022/43
PROCEEDING:	Referral of complaint
DELIVERED ON:	19 August 2022
MEMBER: HEARD AT: ORDER:	McLennan IC On the papers That the proceeding is dismissed pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION: CASES:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – OTHER MATTERS – whether to dismiss proceeding – where the complainant was directed to attend a conference and failed to do so –– where complainant failed to comply with directions - consideration of r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) – substantive matter dismissed Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 451 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 6, r 45 Cady v Capital SMART Repairs Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QIRC 144 Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1998] QCA 114 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1990] 98 ALR 200 Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2001] QCA 176 Seymour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 061 Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 070 Treanor v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 146 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Bero [2019] QIRC 36 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Varga [2019] QIRC 028

Reasons for Decision

Background

On 6 June 2022, the Queensland Human Rights Commission filed a Form 85 - Referral of a matter in the Industrial Registry (the Referral Form).
The Referral Form listed Human Rights Claims as the Complainant's representative.
On 6 June 2022, the Industrial Registry issued a Directions Order requiring that any party seeking to be legally represented in this proceeding, file and serve on the other parties a Form 4 Application in existing proceedings.

On 16 June 2022, the First Respondent filed a Form 4 Application seeking leave to be legally represented.

On 20 June 2022, the Second Respondent advised the Industrial Registry he would be self-represented in these proceedings.
On 23 June 2022, the Industrial Registry emailed all parties annexing an Order I issued granting the First Respondent leave to be legally represented. The cover email sought the parties' availability to attend a conference and stated:

The Complainant is reminded that the Directions Order issued 6 June 2022 required that any party seeking to be legally represented was to file and serve on the other parties an application for leave to represented (Form 4) by 4:00pm on 20 June 2022. If Mr Van Oeveren is representing Ms Gordon in this matter, a Form 34 must be filed as he is a lawyer in addition to the Form 4 Application.

The parties did not advise of their availability and so on 27 June 2022, a notice of listing was issued setting down a conference for 18 July 2022 at 2:30pm.
On 12 July 2022, Human Rights Claims / Supportah Australia Pty Limited filed, via email,…

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 Gordon v Gap Studio Brisbane Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Gordon v GAP Studio Brisbane Pty Ltd [2022] QIRC 324
Case: [2022] QIRC 324
Decision Date: 19 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gordon v Gap Studio Brisbane Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between the complainant, Gordon, and Gap Studio Brisbane Pty Ltd. Gordon had brought a proceeding in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, alleging certain industrial issues. The case came before McLennan Industrial Court, which was tasked with determining whether the proceeding should be dismissed. The primary issue for the Court was whether the complainant's failure to attend a mandated conference and comply with subsequent directions warranted dismissal of the proceeding. This involved an examination of rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.

The Court considered whether the complainant's non-compliance with procedural requirements justified the dismissal of the substantive matter. Rule 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 empowers the Court to dismiss a proceeding if the complainant fails to comply with a direction. The Court assessed whether Gordon's failure to attend the conference and adhere to subsequent directions amounted to sufficient grounds for dismissal. Ultimately, the Court found that the complainant's non-compliance warranted dismissal of the proceeding. The Court reasoned that such non-compliance was a serious matter that undermined the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings.

The Court dismissed the proceeding in its entirety, applying rule 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. The decision highlighted the importance of procedural compliance in industrial relations matters, underscoring that failure to follow directions can lead to the dismissal of a proceeding. This outcome emphasised the need for complainants to adhere strictly to procedural requirements to ensure the proper administration of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

McLennan IC

On the papers

That the proceeding is dismissed pursuant to

r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.