Lockhart v Queensland Health - [2014] QIRC 12

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Lockhart v Queensland Health [2014] QIRC 012

PARTIES:

Lockhart, Kristie

(Applicant)

Queensland Health

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

TD/2013/58

PROCEEDING:

Application for Reinstatement

Application for Extension of Time

PARTIES:

Queensland Health

(Applicant)

Lockhart, Kristie

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

B/2014/1

PROCEEDING:

Application to Dismiss

DELIVERED ON:

21 January 2014

HEARING DATE:

20 January 2014

MEMBER:

Deputy President Kaufman

ORDERS :

Application

for

Extension

Time

dismissed.
2. Application for Reinstatement struck out.

CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW - APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT - Extension of time - Application filed beyond statutory time limit - Employed under various fixed term temporary contracts - Commission's unfettered discretion - Length of delay - Reasons for delay - Prejudice to the applicant or respondent - Conduct of respondent - Prospects of success - Significant delay in filing substantive application - Discretion to extend time not exercised.
CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 72(1)(d), s 74, s 74(2)(a), s 74(2)(b), Chapter 3
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v
Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 at 547
Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees v
Department of Corrective Services (2006) 182 QGIG 503
Wantling v Department of Community Safety (Queensland Corrective Services) (TD/2012/220) - Decision < Erhardt v Goodman Fielder Food Services Ltd
(1999) 163 QGIG 20 Breust v Qantas Airways Limited (1995) 149 QGIG 777
Petruch v Davy Kinhill Fluor Daniel Joint Venture
(1996) 153 QGIG 543 at 543
State of Queensland (Queensland Health) AND Dr Farzana Mitra (B/2012/18) - Decision <hppt://
APPEARANCES:	Ms K. Lockhart, Applicant, in person. Mr M. D. Healy, Counsel instructed by Crown Law for the Respondent.

[1] On 19 July 2013 Ms Kristie Lockhart (the Applicant), filed an application for reinstatement under s. 74 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (the Act) alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed by Queensland Health (the Respondent).
[2]      On 8 January 2014, the Respondent filed an application (B/2014/1) to dismiss Ms Lockhart's application for reinstatement on the basis that it had been filed out of time and, further, that, as she had been engaged for a specific period of time, pursuant to s.72(1)(d) of the Act, Chapter 3 does not apply and no application for reinstatement was able to be made.
[3]     Both applications were listed by the Vice President for a four day hearing commencing on 20 January 2014. On Thursday, 16 January, I had my Associate notify both parties that I would deal with the extension of time issue first.
[4]      That matter was heard at 10 a.m. on Monday 20 January 2014. Ms. Lockhart appeared personally and Mr. M. D. Healy, of Counsel appeared for Queensland Health. Throughout this Decision "the Applicant" is Ms Lockhart and "the Respondent" is Queensland Health.
[5] Section 74(2) of the Act requires that an application for reinstatement be made within 21 days after the dismissal or a further period the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) allows.
[6] The application was made some 63 days after the dismissal, or 42 days beyond the statutory 21…

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 Lockhart v Queensland Health 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: [2014] QIRC 12
Decision Date: 21 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Lockhart, filed an application for reinstatement against Queensland Health in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. He sought to be reinstated to his previous employment after being dismissed, arguing that the dismissal was unlawful. The dispute centred on the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and whether it complied with the statutory framework governing employment terminations in Queensland. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Mr Lockhart's application for reinstatement should be considered, despite being filed beyond the statutory time limit for such applications. This involved assessing the circumstances that led to the delay, including the nature of Mr Lockhart's employment under various fixed-term temporary contracts, and weighing these against the statutory requirements and relevant case law.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the statutory time limit for filing an application for reinstatement could be extended, and if so, what factors should be considered in exercising this discretion. The Commission considered the statutory framework, which provides for an extension of time if the applicant can demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The Commission had to weigh the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, and the conduct of the parties in determining whether to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit. Additionally, the Commission had to consider the prospects of success of Mr Lockhart's substantive application for reinstatement.

After examining the evidence and the arguments presented, the Commission concluded that the delay in filing the application was significant and that the reasons for the delay were not sufficient to warrant an extension of time. The Commission found that Mr Lockhart had not demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, nor had he shown that the extension of time would not prejudice Queensland Health. The prospects of success for the substantive application were also considered to be low, given the circumstances. Consequently, the Commission exercised its discretion not to extend the time limit for filing the application for reinstatement. The Commission dismissed the application for an extension of time, and by implication, the application for reinstatement, as it could not be filed beyond the statutory period without an extension.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application

for

Extension

Time

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.