Rintoul v State of Queensland

In the case of Rintoul v State of Queensland, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of her claim for unlawful discrimination in proceedings before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant argued that she was denied natural justice because she was not allowed to question her witness in chief before cross-examination. The Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, and the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant's application raised a question of law that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The applicant argued that the Appeal Tribunal erred in concluding that she was not denied natural justice. The applicant also contended that the Appeal Tribunal failed to properly consider her submissions about the alleged procedural irregularity.

The Court found that the Appeal Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant was not denied natural justice was open to it based on the transcript of the hearing. The applicant did not demonstrate what, if anything, Mr Joseph might have said had the hearing taken a different course, or what further questions she would have asked after the conclusion of Mr Joseph’s cross-examination which she did not ask. The Court was not persuaded that there was a reasonable argument that there was an error of law to be corrected in respect of the Appeal Tribunal’s consideration of the natural justice ground. The applicant also failed to show that an appeal was necessary to correct a substantial injustice.

The Court refused the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the application.

This case highlights the principles governing a grant of leave to appeal and the importance of demonstrating a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected, and reasonable prospects of success, in order to warrant a grant of leave. The Court also emphasised that an application for leave to appeal is not the occasion to examine things said at conciliation conferences and mediations, or to characterise the case as something akin to a "David and Goliath battle".