SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Parker v QFES Commissioner & Anor [2020] QSC 370
PARTIES:
NEIL PARKER
(plaintiff)
v
COMMISSIONER, QUEENSLAND FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
(first defendant)
MIKE WASSING
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
SC No 48 of 2019
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Claim
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
6 November 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
3 November 2020; 4 November 2020; 5 November 2020
JUDGE:
Henry J
ORDERS:
1. It is declared that in failing to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard in relation to his suspension after his notification of it by the letter from the second defendant dated 3 September 2018, the second defendant failed to ensure that the plaintiff’s suspension was effected in accordance with the principles of natural justice as required by s 33 Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld).
2. It is declared that in failing to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard in relation to his suspension before his notification of suspension in each of the letters from the second defendant dated 27 November 2018, 31 January 2019 and 6 February 2019, the second defendant in each instance failed to ensure that each such suspension was effected in accordance with the principles of natural justice as required by s 33 Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld).
3. Liberty to apply on the giving of two business days’ notice.
4. The parties will file and serve submissions in writing as to costs, not to exceed five pages, within five working days.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was a senior officer in the Rural Fire Service, a branch of the Queensland Fire and Emergency Service (“QFES”) – where the plaintiff was suspended on 3 September 2018 by the second defendant, a delegate of the first defendant, from duties pending the conclusion of a disciplinary process – where subsequently the defendants extended this period of suspension – where the defendants did not hear from the plaintiff in relation to whether he should be suspended or, thereafter, whether the suspension should continue – where the plaintiff was denied access to his work computer and mobile phone preventing him from accessing his emails and diaries – where the plaintiff was denied access to other employees who might have had knowledge of the events the subject of the disciplinary process – whether the defendants denied the plaintiff natural justice by failing to afford him access to material which might have informed his response to the allegations of misconduct – whether determining if natural justice has been afforded would be premature in circumstances where the disciplinary process has not concluded – whether the defendants were under an obligation to afford the plaintiff natural justice when deciding whether or not he should be suspended
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – OBLIGATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY – where the plaintiff was tasked with performing informing counselling services to a…
Continue reading Parker v Qfes Commissioner
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Parker v Qfes Commissioner [2020] QSC 370
- Case
- [2020] QSC 370
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the defendants had denied the plaintiff procedural fairness by not affording him the opportunity to be heard and access to relevant materials before and during his suspension. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether it was appropriate to restrain the QFES's use of the recordings, considering whether the conversations involved information imparted under circumstances that imposed an equitable obligation of confidence. A critical issue was whether the defendants were obligated to adhere to natural justice principles when deciding whether or not to suspend the plaintiff.
The court found that the second defendant failed to comply with the principles of natural justice when suspending the plaintiff, both at the initial suspension and during subsequent extensions. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to be heard and provided with relevant materials before his suspension. The court did not consider it premature to determine if natural justice had been afforded, as the disciplinary process was not yet concluded. Regarding the recordings, the court ruled that they did not constitute an unconscionable misuse of confidential information as the conversations did not involve information imparted under an obligation of confidence. The court declared that the suspensions were not effected in accordance with the principles of natural justice as required by the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld). It also ordered that the parties submit written submissions on costs within five working days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. It is declared that in failing to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard in relation to his suspension after his notification of it by the letter from the second defendant dated 3 September 2018, the second defendant failed to ensure that the plaintiff’s suspension was effected in accordance with the principles of natural justice as required by s 33 Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld).
2. It is declared that in failing to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard in relation to his suspension before his notification of suspension in each of the letters from the second defendant dated 27 November 2018, 31 January 2019 and 6 February 2019, the second defendant in each instance failed to ensure that each such suspension was effected in accordance with the principles of natural justice as required by s 33 Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld).
3. Liberty to apply on the giving of two business days’ notice.
4. The parties will file and serve submissions in writing as to costs, not to exceed five pages, within five working days.
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.