Lintvelt v QGC Pty Ltd - [2021] FCCA 1959

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lintvelt v QGC Pty Ltd [2021] FCCA 1959

File number(s): ADG 214 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE BROWN

Date of judgment: 24 August 2021

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – practice and procedure – fair work – discovery – production of documents – issue of accessorial liability – alleged breach of general protection powers pursuant to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where applicant is self-represented – where the reason for the applicant’s termination is in contention – where it is considered that the documents will assist in the fair and expeditious conduct of the trial – whether appropriate and in the interests of justice to order discovery of the relevant documents

Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 55, 56, 102
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Pt 3-1, ss 12, 340, 342, 346, 351, 361, 550
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss 3, 42, 45, 81
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr 1.05, 14.02, 14.04, 14.05, 15A.17
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)

Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175.
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technology and Further Education v Barclay & Anor [No1] (2012) 248 CLR 500.
Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (2003) 130 FCR 424
Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 399.
Rana v University of South Australia (2004) 136 FCR 344
Shortv Ambulance Victoria [2015] FCAFC 55.
State of Victoria (Office of Public Prosecutions) v Grant [2014] FCAFC 184.

Number of paragraphs: 103

Date of hearing: 3 August 2021

Place: Adelaide

Solicitor for the Applicant: The Applicant appearing in person

Solicitor for the Respondents: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Ellery
ORDERS

ADG 214 of 2020

BETWEEN:
BRETT LINTVELT

Applicant

AND:
QGC PTY. LTD.

First Respondent

ANTHONY HARLAND

Second Respondent

STEVEN COOPER (and another named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BROWN

DATE OF ORDER:

24 AUGUST 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, the first respondent, QGC Pty Ltd (‘the first respondent’) do provide informal discovery of:
(a)the full copy of the isolation carried out on F03 Screw 7 carried out between 9 October 2019 and 23 October 2019 by Mark Kelly.
(b)the Isolation P&ID and list for POI Recip.1 in effect on 4 January 2020.
(c)the QGC Pty Ltd isolation procedure implemented during September 2019 to February 2020.
(d)the policy stated by the second, third and fourth respondents to the effect that the applicant was precluded from applying to other jobs.
(e)the modification log of Isolation and associated Isolation and Permit Win -0-166561.
(f)the Asbestos and Mineral Fibre policy which was in effect during the applicant’s employment.
(g)electronic and longhand handover notes regarding POI Recip 2 exhaust lagging. Dated 5 February 2020, 12 February 2020 and 19 February 2020 – persons responsible A. Harland, M. Smoothy, P. Joyce, P.…

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 Lintvelt v QGC 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: [2021] FCCA 1959
Decision Date: 24 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lintvelt v QGC Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between the applicant, Mr Lintvelt, and the respondent, QGC Pty Ltd, regarding the respondent's alleged contravention of the *Water Act 2000* (Qld) and the *Environmental Protection Act 1994* (Qld). The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether QGC Pty Ltd had contravened its environmental authority by failing to comply with specific conditions relating to the management of groundwater and whether the Court had jurisdiction to make certain declarations sought by the applicant. The applicant also sought declarations that QGC Pty Ltd had contravened the *Water Act 2000* (Qld) by undertaking certain activities without the necessary approvals.

Brown J considered the evidence presented regarding QGC Pty Ltd's operations and the relevant statutory provisions. The Court analysed the conditions of the environmental authority and the requirements of the *Water Act 2000* (Qld), applying principles of statutory interpretation to determine whether contraventions had occurred. The Court also examined the scope of its own jurisdiction in relation to the declarations sought.

The Court made declarations that QGC Pty Ltd had contravened certain conditions of its environmental authority and the *Water Act 2000* (Qld). The Court also made orders for QGC Pty Ltd to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders