Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd - [2025] QIRC 141

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QIRC 141

PARTIES:

Ivins, Jaimee
(Complainant)

KMA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

(First Respondent)

Aldrich, Karl
(Second Respondent)

Robson, Tony
(Third Respondent)

CASE NO:

AD/2025/12

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

2 June 2025

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

O'Neill IC

On the papers

ORDER:

Pursuant to s 530(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the Respondents are given leave to be represented by a lawyer for any conciliation conferences and case management processes.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BE GIVEN TO BE REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER – Complainant made complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission against the Respondents alleging contraventions of various provisions of the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 – complaint referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – complaint yet to be the subject of conciliation before the Commission – application in existing proceedings by the First, Second and Third Respondents for leave to be given to them, pursuant to s 530(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, to be legally represented in the proceedings – Complainant opposes First, Second and Third Respondents' application for leave to be legally represented – whether leave should be given to First, Second and Third Respondents to be legally represented having regard to s 530(4)(a) and (c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 – applications in existing proceedings for the First, Second and Third Respondents to be represented by a lawyer are allowed

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 530

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 41

Gardiner v Star Track Express Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QIRC 121

Golding v Sippel and The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd [2021] ICQ 14

Goodchild v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 046

Kempster v JGI Property Group Pty Limited [2024] QIRC 151

Neil v Lee [2024] QIRC 93

Rozendaal v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 135

Sillay v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] ICQ 16

State of Queensland (Department of Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118

State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume [2022] ICQ 1

Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 079

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

On 22 December 2023, Ms Jaimee Ivins ('the Complainant') made a complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission ('QHRC') alleging that KMA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd ('the First Respondent'), Mr Karl Aldrich (Director of the First Respondent) ('the Second Respondent') and Mr Tony Robson ('the Third Respondent') had contravened various provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ('the AD Act').
The Complainant was employed by the First Respondent initially as a casual administrative assistant from 25 August 2022. On or about 12 June 2023, the Complainant alleges she commenced a permanent full-time role with the First Respondent as an Undergraduate Engineer.
In the course of her employment…

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 Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers 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 141
Decision Date: 2 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd was heard by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The Complainant brought a complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission against the Respondents, alleging contraventions of various provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The complaint was referred to the Commission, and before it was subject to conciliation, the Respondents applied for leave to be legally represented in the proceedings under section 530(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016. The Complainant opposed the applications.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the Respondents should be granted leave to be legally represented in the proceedings, having regard to section 530(4)(a) and (c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016. The court also considered the procedural fairness to the unrepresented Complainant.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the Complainant had objected to the Respondents being legally represented, but she had not lodged a Form 102 Response to the application for leave within the prescribed time. The court considered that it was appropriate to grant the Complainant an extension of time to file her response and submissions in support of her objection to the applications. The court also considered the submissions provided by both parties in respect of the applications. Ultimately, the court determined that the Respondents should be granted leave to be legally represented in the proceeding, in accordance with section 530(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 530(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the Respondents are given leave to be represented by a lawyer for any conciliation conferences and case management processes.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Complainant objects to both applications. Relevant background to the applications On 9 April 2025, the proceeding was listed for a conciliation conference to be held on 9 May 2025. On 11 April 2025, the First and Second Respondents filed a Form 101 Application ('the first application') and supporting affidavit of a solicitor employed by Aitken Legal seeking leave to be legally represented in the proceeding pursuant to s 530 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act'). On 11 April 2025, the Third Respondent also filed a Form 101 Application ('the second application') and supporting affidavit of a solicitor employed by Turner Freeman Lawyers seeking leave to be legally represented in the proceeding pursuant to s 530 of the IR Act. On the same day, the Industrial Registry sent two emails to all of the parties, including the Complainant, attaching a copy of the two applications and supporting affidavits, and noting that that the Commission would be in contact as to the future conduct of the matter. The Commission did not make further contact with the parties regarding the two applications for leave for legal representation. The Complainant did not lodge a Form 102 – Response to application for leave to be represented by a lawyer ('the Form 102') within seven days. The conciliation conference in the matter was convened on 9 May 2025. All three Respondents appeared with their respective legal representatives and the Complainant appeared unrepresented but with a support person. The Commission ascertained that the Complainant had received late notice of the listing of the conference due to the email going into her spam folder. Upon becoming aware that the matter was listed, the Complainant commenced preparing Form 102 responses objecting to each application. When the Complainant realised that she was out of time to respond to the applications, she abandoned the preparation of her objection. At the conference on 9 May 2025 the Complainant confirmed that she maintained an objection to the Respondents being legally represented. Given this, and in order to afford procedural fairness to the unrepresented Complainant, the Commission considered that it was appropriate for the Complainant to be granted an extension of time to file her Form 102 response and submissions in support of her objection to the applications. The conciliation conference was adjourned and a directions order was issued for the parties to provide submissions in respect of the two applications. On 19 May 2025 the Complainant filed in the Industrial Registry a Form 102 response and supporting affidavit and submissions objecting to the Respondents' applications for legal representation. On 23 May 2025 the Respondents respectively provided submissions in response to those provided by the Complainant. Neither party elected to make further oral submissions with respect to their positions and, accordingly, the interlocutory application will be dealt with on the papers. The question for my determination is whether leave should be granted for the Respondents to be legally represented in the proceeding.Relevant legislation

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.