Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd - [2025] QIRC 63

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QIRC 063
PARTIES:	Isermann, Debra (Complainant) v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd (First Respondent) & Hancock, Karen (Second Respondent) & Hancock, Noel (Third Respondent)
CASE NO:	AD/2023/141
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	3 March 2025
HEARING DATE:	24 February 2025
MEMBER:	Power IC
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDER:	1. The application is existing proceedings is granted. 2. The substantive claim in AD/2023/141 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION TO DISMISS – where Respondent made settlement offer to Complainant at conciliation conference – where Complainant considered offer over four days – where Complainant advised that offer was accepted – whether final agreement reached following acceptance of offer – where settlement precludes continuation of claim.
LEGISLATION:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 174C, s 189 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 451
CASES:	Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman [2011] FCA 975 Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 Mouketo v State of Queensland (Metro South Hospital and Health Service) [2016] ICQ 025 Zoiti-Licastro v Australian Taxation Office (2006) 154 IR 1

Reasons for Decision

The Respondents filed an Application in existing proceedings on 16 October 2024 seeking to have the Complainant's substantive claim dismissed on the grounds that a settlement had been made between the parties.

The Complainant filed the following submissions in summary –
·        The offer was accepted before the Complainant had signed an agreement.
·        An email was sent to the Commission from Daniel Catanzaro regarding CCTV footage which provided an inconsistent explanation as to how the different version of the footage came to be.
·        The CCTV footage should have been provided in full to the parties.
·        The Complainant did not sign the agreement emailed to her and notified the Respondents and the Commission on 3 September 2024 that she had changed her mind due to new evidence and not agreeing to the terms in the deed of release.
·        On 12 September 2024, some 9 days later, the Third Respondent deposited $500 in the Complainant's bank account.

The Respondents filed the following submissions in summary –
·        At the Conciliation Conference on 15 August 2024 the Respondent made an offer to settle the matter.
·        The Applicant requested that she be given 4 days to consider the offer, other options, and to discuss the matter with outside parties.
·        On 19 August 2024, 4 days following the Conference, the Applicant emailed the Commission and stated that she agreed to the offer made at conciliation to finalise the matter and bank account details were provided.
·        On 3 September 2024, the Commission sent the Applicant an email confirming her acceptance.
·        The Complainant's submissions for this application state that she agreed to take the offer.

Consideration

The question to be determined in this Application is whether an agreement had been reached between the parties to resolve the complaint. There is no dispute as to the relevant…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QIRC 63
Decision Date: 3 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Isermann, the Complainant, and Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd, the Respondent. The nature of the dispute pertains to the dismissal of an existing application in proceedings, focusing on whether a final agreement was reached following the acceptance of a settlement offer made by the Respondent to the Complainant at a conciliation conference. The court involved in this matter is the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

The legal issue before the FWC was to determine whether a final agreement was reached following the acceptance of the settlement offer. The Complainant, after considering the offer for four days, indicated acceptance, but the Respondent argued that this acceptance did not lead to a final agreement, hence, the Complainant’s application should not be dismissed. The core legal issue was whether the acceptance of the settlement offer resulted in a final agreement that precluded the continuation of the substantive claim.

The FWC reasoned that upon the Complainant’s acceptance of the settlement offer, a binding agreement was formed. This agreement was final and concluded the dispute between the parties, thereby precluding the continuation of the substantive claim. The FWC found that the Complainant’s acceptance of the settlement offer was unequivocal and final, thus, the application to dismiss the existing proceedings was warranted.

The final orders of the FWC were that the application to dismiss the existing proceedings was granted, and the substantive claim in AD/2023/141 was dismissed. This decision effectively concluded the legal dispute between the parties, with the settlement offer being upheld as a binding agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is existing proceedings is granted.

2. The substantive claim in AD/2023/141 is dismissed.

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.