Jackson v Job Futures Ltd - [2021] QIRC 203

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Jackson v Job Futures Ltd & Anor [2021] QIRC 203
PARTIES:	Jackson, Kristen (Complainant) v Job Futures Ltd (First Respondent) & Ralston, Emma (Second Respondent)
CASE NO:	AD/2020/101
PROCEEDING:	Anti-Discrimination
DELIVERED ON:	7 June 2021
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	McLennan IC On the papers
ORDER:	That the proceeding is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – where Complainant failed to provide requested information – where Complainant failed to comply with directions orders – consideration of r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) – where proceeding is dismissed
LEGISLATION: CASES:	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 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

Ms Kristen Jackson filed a Form 85 - Referral of a matter in the Industrial Registry on 9 November 2020 (the Complaint).
The Complaint relates to Ms Jackson's claim that during her employment by the First Respondent she was subjected to direct discrimination on the basis of an impairment.
At the commencement of this proceeding, Ms Jackson was represented by Supportah Ops Pty Ltd trading as Human Rights Claims.
The matter did not resolve at the first conference on 8 March 2021. A Further Directions Order was issued on that date, requiring the parties to undertake several steps prior to returning for a second conference. Relevantly, the first direction stipulated:
That the Complainant file in the Industrial Registry and serve on the Respondents a statement of
facts and contentions (no more than 10 pages, type-written, line and a half spaced, 12-point font
size and with numbered paragraphs), by 4.00 pm on 29 March 2021.

On 27 April 2021, Ovartis Lawyers contacted the Industrial Registry on behalf of the Respondents and advised:
Further to the directions issued in this matter, we note that we have not been served with the statement of facts and contentions due on 29 March 2021.
Subsequently on 27 April 2021, Supportah Ops Pty Ltd filed a Form 35 - Notice of withdrawal of appointment of lawyer or agent with the Industrial Registry.
On 28 April 2021, the Industrial Registry issued an email to the parties that stated the following (emphasis added):
Commissioner McLennan will grant leave for Mr Van Oeveren to withdraw from acting once the Commissioner is assured that we have a current address for service and contact details for the Applicant. Please confirm the Applicant’s email address, postal address, and phone number.
Until the Commissioner grants that leave, kindly ensure that you forward any correspondence or Directions to the Applicant.
Further to Ms Town’s correspondence dated 27…

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 Jackson v Job Futures 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: [2021] QIRC 203
Decision Date: 7 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jackson brought an action against Job Futures Ltd in the Anti-Discrimination Court, alleging discrimination. The court was tasked with determining whether the complainant had provided the necessary information and complied with the orders given by the court. The legal issues at hand were whether the complainant had failed to provide requested information and whether the complainant had failed to comply with the directions orders, and if these failures warranted the dismissal of the proceedings under r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld).

The court examined the procedural history of the case and found that the complainant had not provided the requested information and had not complied with the directions orders. The court concluded that these failures were significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the proceeding. The court found that the complainant's conduct demonstrated a lack of willingness to participate in the proceedings in a meaningful way. The court held that the failure to provide requested information and to comply with directions orders was a breach of the complainant's obligations under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), and that such a breach justified the dismissal of the proceeding.

The court dismissed the proceeding and made no further orders. The dismissal was based on the complainant's failure to provide requested information and to comply with directions orders, which the court found to be a serious breach of the complainant's obligations under the Act. The court held that the dismissal was necessary to maintain the integrity of the proceedings and to ensure that the resources of the court were not wasted on a proceeding that was unlikely to succeed. The court also noted that the dismissal was not a reflection on the merits of the complainant's case, but rather a consequence of the complainant's failure to comply with the court's orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the proceeding 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.