QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | |
PARTIES: | Neil, Debra v Lee, John |
CASE NO: | AD/2022/77 |
PROCEEDING: | Complaint referral and Application in existing proceedings |
DELIVERED ON: | 24 April 2024 |
| HEARING DATES: | 9 November 2023 and 11 April 2024 |
| DATE OF LAST SUBMISSION: | 17 April 2024 |
MEMBER: PLACE OF HEARING: | Merrell DP Brisbane |
ORDER: | The order contained in paragraph [146] of these reasons for decision. |
| CATCHWORDS: | HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION – Complainant advertised that she was seeking accommodation – Respondent contacted the Complainant advising he was looking for a caretaker in respect of which a fully furnished house would be provided – Complainant made arrangements to travel from Victoria to Queensland for the purposes of taking up the work offered by the Respondent and as accepted by the Complainant – Respondent sent text messages to the Complainant including some of a sexual nature – Complainant decided not to take up offer of work by Respondent – Complainant made Complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission about the conduct of the Respondent – complaint referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – various Directions Orders made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in relation to the conciliation of the Complaint – no compliance by the Respondent with the Directions Orders made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – application by the Complainant, pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for a final order due to the Respondent's failure to comply with a Directions Order – assessment of whether the Respondent contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 – determination that the Respondent contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 – assessment of the Complainant's loss – consideration of principles in respect of the compensation order sought by the Complainant – order for compensation made PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – DEFAULT JUDGMENT – JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE – whether the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has power to make final orders for a complainant in default of compliance by a respondent with directions orders – pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has power to make final orders in default of compliance by a Respondent with directions orders – principles to apply in determining whether the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission may exercise discretion to make a final order in default of compliance by a respondent with directions orders |
| LEGISLATION: | Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, s 7, s 15, s 83, s 117, s 118, s 119, s 120, s 166, s 174B and s 209 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, s 46PO Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 530, s 539 and sch 5 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 5, r 6, r 8, r 24, r 25, r 26, r 27, r 28, r 29, r 30, r 31, r 41, r… |
Continue reading Neil v Lee
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Neil v Lee [2024] QIRC 93
- Case
- [2024] QIRC 93
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide several legal issues. Firstly, whether the QIRC has the power to make final orders for a complainant in default of compliance by a respondent with directions orders. Secondly, the principles to be applied in determining whether the QIRC may exercise its discretion to make a final order in default of compliance by a respondent with directions orders. The court found that the QIRC does have the power to make final orders under rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. The court further determined that the QIRC may exercise its discretion to make a final order in default of compliance by a respondent with directions orders if the complainant has suffered a loss as a result of the respondent's non-compliance. The QIRC must consider the principles of fairness, proportionality, and the objectives of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 when exercising its discretion.
The QIRC found that the Respondent had contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 by sending the Complainant text messages of a sexual nature. The QIRC assessed the Complainant's loss and determined that the Complainant had suffered a loss due to the Respondent's non-compliance with the directions orders. The QIRC exercised its discretion to make a final order for the Complainant, finding that the principles of fairness, proportionality, and the objectives of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 supported such an order. The QIRC made an order for compensation to the Complainant, which was contained in paragraph [146] of the reasons for decision.
The final order made by the QIRC was for the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant, as outlined in paragraph [146] of the reasons for decision. This order was based on the findings that the Respondent had contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 and that the Complainant had suffered a loss due to the Respondent's non-compliance with the directions orders. The QIRC exercised its discretion to make a final order in default of compliance by the Respondent, taking into account the principles of fairness, proportionality, and the objectives of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The compensation amount was determined by the QIRC to be appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
The order contained in paragraph [146] of these reasons for decision.
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.