Rintoul v State of Queensland

Ms Jennette Rintoul has commenced proceedings against the State of Queensland, Mr Doug Quadrio and Mr Peter Lemon, alleging discrimination in her workplace at Atherton State High School. The respondents have applied to have Ms Rintoul's claim struck out. They argue that Ms Rintoul has failed to comply with directions to provide particulars of her claim. The tribunal has the power to strike out a claim if it considers a party is acting in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party by not complying with a tribunal order without reasonable excuse. The tribunal may order the proceeding to be dismissed or struck out and may also order costs. The tribunal must have regard to the extent to which the party causing the disadvantage is familiar with the tribunal's practices and procedures; that party's capacity to understand and act on the tribunal's orders; and whether the party is acting deliberately.Ms Rintoul's lawyers submit that they have complied with the tribunal's orders but by filing amended submissions, each more specific and detailed than the last, Ms Rintoul's lawyers have demonstrated that their earlier efforts did not comply with the tribunal's orders. I am satisfied that Ms Rintoul has a history of non-compliance with tribunal orders. I am also satisfied that Ms Rintoul has still not complied with the tribunal's orders. Not all aspects of the amended table detail the way in which the conduct amounts to discrimination within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Further, although Ms Rintoul claims compensation, she has not provided any details of the amount she seeks or the basis for calculating that amount.Ms Rintoul's lawyers say they have gone some way in applying the elements of the legislation to the conduct and that Ms Rintoul cannot be expected to have provided the level of detail requested by Crown Law without being expressly directed to do so by the Tribunal. However, the tribunal's obligation to act with "little formality and technicality" is subject to the condition that there is a proper consideration of the matter before the tribunal. The hearing of an application based on broad allegations that are not tied to the specific meanings of discrimination in the Anti-Discrimination Act is fraught with difficulties. It consumes significant resources. It is not an economical and quick process. It does not ensure proceedings are conducted in a way that minimises costs to the parties. It leaves the decision maker at risk of an appeal because the issues may not be well articulated or argued. The tribunal's directions are designed to ensure that parties know what case they have to meet and that the tribunal has the information it needs to make a proper determination.Ms Rintoul's lawyers cannot assert that this was ever in doubt or that they were not expressly directed to provide it. Ms Rintoul has not provided a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the tribunal's directions. I am not satisfied that the disadvantage is sufficient to justify Ms Rintoul's claim being struck out. However, I am satisfied that the respondents have been put to unnecessary expense in attempting to extract proper particulars of Ms Rintoul's claim. I am satisfied that Ms Rintoul understood and was capable of acting on the tribunal's orders. I have also formed the view that the failure to provide detailed particulars was deliberate. Therefore, I am inclined to order Ms Rintoul pay Crown Law's costs of and incidental to this application. The parties may file and serve submissions on that point, including Crown Law's estimate of those costs, before I make a final determination.

The application to strike out a proceeding is dismissed. Ms Rintoul will file and serve further particulars of her claim by 31 March 2014. The respondents will file and serve any submissions as to the costs of this application by 14 April 2014. Ms Rintoul will file and serve any submissions in reply to the respondents' submissions on costs by 28 April 2014. The respondents will file and serve their contentions in response setting out any disputed facts, contending why the conduct complained of does not amount to unlawful discrimination, commenting on the stated impacts and outcomes of Ms Rintoul and stating what outcome they are seeking by 19 May 2014. Ms Rintoul must file in the Tribunal and give one (1) copy to the respondents: a. Jennette Rintoul’s statement of evidence, which must be page numbered; b. The statement from each witness to give evidence for Ms Rintoul at the hearing including any experts and; c. Any documents referred to in a statement of evidence which must be identified, explained and attached to the appropriate witness statement by 26 May 2014. If Ms Rintoul does not comply with paragraphs 2 and 4 by the due dates, application ADL047-13 will be dismissed without further order. The respondents must file in the Tribunal and give one (1) copy to Ms Rintoul: a. The statement from each witness to give evidence for State of Queensland, Doug Quadrio and Peter Lemon at the hearing including any experts and; b. Any documents referred to in a statement of evidence which must be identified, explained and attached to the appropriate witness statement by 23 June 2014. The application is listed for a Directions hearing on 25 June 2014 at 9.30am. The application is listed for Hearing in Brisbane on 17 and 18 July 2014.