Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 3) - [2025] QIRC 189

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 3) [2025] QIRC 189
PARTIES:	Plumb, Jason (Applicant) v Rockhampton Regional Council (Respondent)
CASE NO.:	TD/2021/97
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	24 July 2025
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Merrell DP On the papers
ORDERS:	The orders contained in paragraph [98] of these reasons for decision.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF EVIDENCE – SUBPOENAS AND NOTICE TO PRODUCE AT HEARING – SETTING ASIDE AND OTHER RELIEF – Applicant was employed by the Respondent and was dismissed on 5 October 2021 – on 11 November 2021, the Applicant applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 – Applicant's application the subject of a conciliation conference – conciliation certificate issued on 23 December 2021 – no other action taken by the Applicant in respect of his application for reinstatement until 23 February 2024 when the Applicant applied to re-open his application for reinstatement – matter set down for hearing as to whether the Commission, pursuant to r 230 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, would order the Applicant to take further action in respect of his reinstatement application – Applicant requested attendance notices to be issued for five persons for the production of documents and to give evidence at the hearing – five attendance notices issued – applications to set aside the five attendance notices – principles in respect of the setting aside of attendance notices – whether five attendance notices should be set aside – five attendance notices set aside
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 317, s 318, s 484 and s 922 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 6, r 59, r 61 and r 230 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 389, r 415 and r 416 Rules of the Supreme Court, O. 90, r 9
CASES:	Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Stanfield & Smith (A Firm) [2011] QSC 273 Barnes v Q-Comp & Hatch Pty Ltd [2017] QIRC 025 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564 Cooper v Hopgood and Ganim [1998] QCA 114; [1998] 2 Qd R 113 DP World Brisbane Pty Ltd v Rogers & Anor [2014] ICQ 010 Kieoskie v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (Queensland Court of Appeal, 15 September 1992) Lucas Industries Ltd v Hewitt (1978) 18 ALR 555 Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 619 McColl v Lehmann [1987] VR 503 McEwan v Rains [2023] QCA 135; (2023) 15 QR 251 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24 Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 025 Niceforo v Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance Company & Ors [2023] QSC 282 Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 150 Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council [2025] QIRC 176 Sharples v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 020 Southern Pacific Hotel Services Inc v Southern Pacific Hotel…

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 Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 3) 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: [2025] QIRC 189
Decision Date: 24 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dr Plumb, the applicant, sought to set aside five attendance notices that had been issued in relation to his application for reinstatement following his dismissal from employment with the Rockhampton Regional Council, the respondent. The application to set aside the attendance notices was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The legal issue before QCAT was whether the five attendance notices should be set aside. Dr Plumb argued that the respondent had provided false and misleading information in their Employer Response, which prejudiced his application for reinstatement. He further contended that the information obtained through a Right to Information application showed that the respondent had acted with a lack of integrity and impartiality. The respondent argued that the attendance notices were validly issued and should not be set aside.

QCAT considered the principles for setting aside attendance notices, including the need for the party seeking to set aside the notice to demonstrate that there was a serious issue to be tried and that the notice should not have been issued in the circumstances. QCAT found that Dr Plumb had not demonstrated that there was a serious issue to be tried. QCAT held that the five attendance notices should be set aside, as the application for reinstatement had not been pursued for over two years, and there was no evidence that the information obtained through the Right to Information application would have any bearing on the outcome of the reinstatement application. The five attendance notices were set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders contained in paragraph [98] of these reasons for decision.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

By his General Application filed on 23 February 2024, Dr Plumb gave the following grounds for the relief he sought by that application:1.In June 2023 I became aware of key information via a Right To information application to the Respondent (15507), that I reasonably believe shows clearly that Rockhampton Regional Council via Travis Pegrem allegedly provided false and misleading information and deliberately omitted important information in their Employer Response that prejudiced my Application for Reinstatement TD97[2021].2.The Right to Information documents show clearly that the Respondent was aware of a hurriedly arranged external investigation, that they initiated while I was on two weeks annual leave prior to my termination, based on no formal complaints against me and an apparent lack of due process.3.The external investigation report that was delivered to the Respondent (including Mr Pegrem and other senior management) one working day before I was to return to work from annual leave, states clearly that I was not provided with any procedural fairness and yet the Respondent then knowingly failed to provide me with any opportunity to have procedural fairness and terminated my employment without any warning or awareness of any issues associated with my performance or behaviour in the completion of my role.4.I allege that the Respondent willfully [sic] contravened a section of the Industrial Relations Act by providing false and misleading information which contributed to depriving me of entitlement to have a fair hearing by the Industrial Relations tribunal under the Human Rights Act.5.I allege that the Respondents actions were not consistent with the Deed of Settlement that I was required to sign under significant duress given their actions and my mental health status as a result, an undertaking for which false and misleading information was also provided in the Employer Response they provided to my application mentioned above.6.I allege that the information I obtained through the Right To Information application I believe shows clearly that the Respondent willfully [sic] breached their obligations as my employer under the Certified Agreement, Industrial Relations Act, Local Government Act and Public Sector Ethics Act that require them to act with integrity and impartiality, despite the Respondent claiming to the contrary in their Employer Response submitted in relation to my Application for Reinstatement TD97[2021].The five attendance notices for production and to give evidence The five attendance notices were directed to:·Cr Tony Williams, Mayor, Rockhampton Regional Council ('the Mayor' and 'the Mayor's attendance notice');·Mr Evan Pardon, Chief Executive Officer, Rockhampton Regional Council ('Mr Pardon' and 'Mr Pardon's attendance notice');·Mr Ross Cheesman, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Rockhampton Regional Council ('Mr Cheesman' and 'Mr Cheesman's attendance notice')·Mr Peter Kofod, General Manager, Regional Services, Rockhampton Regional Council ('Mr Kofod' and 'Mr Kofod's attendance notice'); and·Mr Travis Pegrem, Coordinator People and Capability, Rockhampton Regional Council ('Mr Pegrem' and 'Mr Pegrem's attendance notice').

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.