James v Rasmussen and State of Queensland
[2014] QCAT 375
| CITATION: | James v Rasmussen and State of Queensland [2014] QCAT 375 |
| PARTIES: | Alex Daniel James (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Zoe Rasmussen (First Respondent) | |
| State of Queensland (Second Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | ADL064-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Anti-discrimination matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Endicott |
| DELIVERED ON: | 30 July 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application by Alex Daniel James for an order to produce documents by Director of Medical Services, Rockhampton Hospital is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – where complaint that person had been discriminated against on grounds of an impairment – where contentions filed setting out the basis for that complaint PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS – where order sought for production of documents from a third party – where documents related to a period at least five years prior to the events in the complaint – where some of the documents sought related to a person who was not the complainant – whether documents were relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 97 Xstrata Queensland Limited v Santos Ltd [2005] QSC 323 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr James has made a complaint that the respondents have acted in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 in the administration of government laws and programs based on his impairment. A hearing of this complaint is scheduled to take place on 14 and 15 August 2014. The complaint is denied by the respondents.
Mr James applied to the tribunal for an order under section 97 of the QCAT Act for production of documents by a third party, namely the Director of Medical Services at Rockhampton Hospital. The documents sought by Mr James were medical records of him and his partner from 2004 to 2005.
Mr James submitted that the documents were required for the purpose of verifying witness statements to prove allegations made in his statement of evidence, to prove the respondents had altered dates and had substantiated notifications without grounds with the intent to discriminate at a later date, to conceal the intended future act, and to use the altered documentation to justify grounds for the removal of children from the care of the applicant and his partner at a later date.
The respondents opposed an order being made. They submitted that the complaint relates to events that had occurred between 31 January 2012 and 8 June 2012. They opposed the application for an order under section 97 on the basis that the documents sought are irrelevant, the application did not refer to specific documents, the application was an abuse of process and the documents were not for the primary purpose of disclosing relevant information to the tribunal but to assist Mr James in preparing his case.
The respondents submitted that the timeframe for the requested documents is well before the events took place that are the subject of the complaint and could not be relevant to the proceeding. The respondents submitted that the contentions do not refer to any notifications received by Child Safety in 2004 or 2005. It was submitted that the sought after documents are irrelevant on the grounds that they are outside the scope of the discrimination complaint lodged with the Commission and referred to QCAT.
The respondents submitted that the documents sought had not been specified but rather are documents belonging to certain categories that may or may not exist. Further it was submitted that the request amounts to an abuse of process for third party discovery of documents based on a tenuous argument that in 2004 and 2005 Child Safety wrongly substantiated notifications intending to use that information to discriminate against Mr James and his partner at some future time.
The essential issue in this application for the production of documents under section 97 is whether the documents are relevant in terms of the documents relating to the subject matter of the proceeding.[1] Hospital records relating to a period some 5 or 6 years before the events in this complaint are not easily explained as relating to the subject matter of this proceeding. Hospital records relating to a person who is not a party to the complaint cannot relate to the subject matter of this proceeding.
[1] Xstrata Queensland Limited v Santos Ltd [2005] QSC 323.
The tribunal does not have limitless jurisdiction to deal with complaints made under the Anti-Discrimination Act. QCAT’s jurisdiction is limited to complaints referred by the Commission. Matters that are not part of the referred complaint cannot be determined by QCAT.[2] While there is power to amend a complaint, that power cannot be used to give the tribunal jurisdiction to hear a complaint outside the scope of the referral from the Commission. Mr James has not applied to amend the referred complaint but has sought to produce documents at the hearing that relate to a period some 5 years before the events that are the subject of the complaint.
[2] Mt Isa Mines Limited v Hopper [1999] 1 Qd R 496.
In this case Mr James purports to make the sought after documents relevant by alleging that actions by the agents of one of the respondents in 2004 and 2005 were done with a view to set up the basis for a future discriminatory act by that respondent or its agents. That proposition is unsupported by any admissions from the respondents or evidence that could give rise to any reasonable inference in favour of the applicant’s proposition. Although the documents may well reveal evidence of the mental health status of the applicant in 2004 and 2005, that evidence is unrelated to the case actually put forward in the complaint or contentions of Mr James. That is the case that he has to establish by his evidence and not a case that is augmented by accusations and suppositions.
Having been unconvinced that the documents were relevant to the complaint, I dismissed the application by Mr James for an order under section 97 of the QCAT Act for production of documents at the hearing.