Karov v Chief Executive, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Karov v Chief Executive, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation [2023] QCAT 470

PARTIES:

DANIEL KAROV

(applicant)

v

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR285-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:

1. The Application of Mr Daniel Karov filed 9 August 2023 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application for non-publication – when the applicant seeks non-publication order on mental health and interests of justice grounds – whether the non-publication order should be granted.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66

CLW v Health Ombudsman [2023] QCAT 28
Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 089

Queensland College of Teachers v Mills [2015] QCAT 476

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

In 2011, I published a decision[1] confirming a decision by the Chief Executive to not grant a real estate licence to Daniel Karov due to his previous assault conviction. Mr Karov has applied for a non-publication order in relation to those reasons.
[1]Karov v Chief Executive, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation [2011] QCAT 11.
Mr Karov relies on section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, specifically subsections (2)(b) and (2)(e) which states:
The tribunal may make an order [prohibiting publication] only if the tribunal considers the order is necessary –
…
(b) to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person; or
…
(e) for any other reason in the interests of justice.
Mr Karov wants the non-publication order because publication of the reasons affects his employment opportunities, professional and personal relationships, and his health. He also claims the criminal record is personal information, and the publication of it is no longer up to date or relevant, and a significant time has passed since the reasons were published. He says that the reasons are the first thing anyone sees if they do a Google search of his name.
A non‑publication order will only be granted in limited circumstances. It will not be granted to prevent embarrassment,[2] or to shield against the unfortunate consequences of a person’s behaviour.[3]
[2]CLW v Health Ombudsman [2023] QCAT 28, [18].
[3]Queensland College of Teachers v Mills [2015] QCAT 476, [4], [17].
The interests of justice are underpinned by the principle of open justice, which requires publication except where there is material demonstrating a necessity to prohibit publication.[4]
[4]Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 089.
While Mr Karov states the publication of the reasons effect his mental health, he has not filed any evidence demonstrating this. It seems the principal reason for his application is to avoid embarrassment.
I note that, even if I made a non-publication order, it would not address the mischief of the Google search result.
For these reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Orders
The Application of Mr Daniel Karov filed 9 August 2023 is dismissed.

Karov v Chief Executive, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation involved Mr Daniel Karov, who sought a non-publication order concerning proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The application was based on mental health considerations and the interests of justice. The Chief Executive of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation opposed the application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the non-publication order should be granted. The court examined Mr Karov’s mental health status and the impact of publication on his well-being, as well as the broader public interest in transparency and the administration of justice. It also considered the principle of open justice, which is fundamental to the Australian legal system.

The court dismissed Mr Karov’s application for a non-publication order. The decision emphasised the importance of open justice and the need to balance this principle with the individual’s mental health concerns. The court found that the potential harm to Mr Karov's mental health did not sufficiently outweigh the public interest in transparency. The decision underscored the significant weight given to the principle of open justice in administrative law proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established