Romanski v Stone - [2025] ICQ 5

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Romanski v Stone [2025] ICQ 005
PARTIES:	Romanski, Marek Roman (Appellant) v Stone, Mark Douglas (Respondent)
CASE NO:	C/2024/20
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	25 March 2025
HEARING DATE:	30 May 2024
MEMBER:	Hartigan DP
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDER:	The application in existing proceedings filed 26 March 2024 by the Respondent is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant appeals an interlocutory decision of the Industrial Magistrates Court regarding an application to strike out paragraphs of the respondent's statement of contentions – where the respondent has filed an interlocutory application seeking that a determination be made as to whether the Industrial Court of Queensland is the proper court to determine the appeal – where the respondent submits that the District Court of Queensland is the correct jurisdiction for the appeal in accordance with s 242 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) – whether the Industrial Court of Queensland has jurisdiction to hear the appeal – where the application is dismissed
LEGISLATION:	Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld), s 6, s 7, s 193A, s 197D, s 236A, s 238, s 240, s 241, s 242, s 243, s 244, s 246, s 248, s 255 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 424, s 425, s 556, s 557, sch 5 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 558, s 561, s 562
CASES:	Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2017) 249 FCR 154 Dalliston v Taylor & Anor [2014] ICQ 17 Fuller v Stone [2023] ICQ 8 Gilbert v Metro North Health and Hospital Service (No 2) (2023) 327 IR 282 Nicholson v Carborough Downs Coal Management Pty Ltd & Ors (No 4) [2023] ICQ 5 Paulger v Hall [2003] 2 Qd R 294 Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300 Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] ICQ 8 Turay v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 13
APPEARANCES:	Mr N.D. Boyd of counsel instructed by McGinness & Associates Lawyers for the Appellant Mr S. McLeod KC of counsel instructed by Resources Safety and Health Queensland for the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

Mr Marek Romanski, the Appellant, appeals a decision of an Industrial Magistrate dismissing an application to strike out certain paragraphs of the Respondent's Statement of Contentions ('the Appeal').
The Respondent, the Chief Executive Officer, Resources Safety and Health Queensland, has filed an application in existing proceedings, seeking that the appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Respondent raises the jurisdictional objection on the basis that it contends that the Industrial Court of Queensland ('Industrial Court') does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and, rather, the appeal should have been commenced in the District Court of Queensland ('District Court') in accordance with s 242 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) ('CMSH Act').

Relevant background

Decision of the Industrial Magistrate

The proceedings below involved…

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.

Continue reading Romanski v Stone

Details

AGLC: Romanski v Stone [2025] ICQ 5
Case: [2025] ICQ 5
Decision Date: 25 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Romanski v Stone is an appeal against an interlocutory decision of the Industrial Magistrates Court. The appellant, Mr Romanski, sought to appeal a decision to strike out certain paragraphs of the respondent's statement of contentions. The respondent, Mr Stone, filed an interlocutory application to determine whether the Industrial Court of Queensland is the proper court to hear the appeal, submitting that the District Court of Queensland is the correct jurisdiction under section 242 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld). The key legal issue was whether the Industrial Court of Queensland had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Industrial Magistrates Court decision.

The court examined the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court of Queensland to hear the appeal from the Industrial Magistrates decision. The court found that there is no statutory avenue for an appeal from the Industrial Magistrates decision under section 556 of the Industrial Relations Act. However, the court recognised that section 424 of the Industrial Relations Act grants the Industrial Court jurisdiction and powers to review decisions of the Industrial Magistrates Court. Section 424(e)(i) and (ii) provides for relief by prerogative order where the Industrial Magistrates have not exercised their jurisdiction according to law or have exceeded their jurisdiction. The court concluded that while the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, Mr Romanski could seek review of the Industrial Magistrates decision under section 424 of the Industrial Relations Act. However, the supervisory jurisdiction in the absence of statutory provision rests with the Supreme Court of Queensland, not the Industrial Court of Queensland.

The court dismissed the respondent's application, finding that the Industrial Court of Queensland did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Industrial Magistrates decision. The court emphasised that while Mr Romanski could seek review of the Industrial Magistrates decision under section 424 of the Industrial Relations Act, the supervisory jurisdiction in the absence of statutory provision rests with the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application in existing proceedings filed 26 March 2024 by the Respondent is dismissed.

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

The Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the Industrial Magistrates decision pursuant to s 556 of the IR Act with respect to an appeal regarding a Division 1 decision made in accordance with the CMSH Act. Is Mr Romanski able to proceed in this Court by operation of s 424 of the IR Act? In the alternative, Mr Romanski seeks to rely on s 424 of the IR Act as a means for the appeal to be heard in the Industrial Court. As noted above, Mr Romanski filed an application to appeal in the Industrial Registry. Mr Romanski has not made a formal application for prerogative relief. However, it is apparent on the face of the application to appeal, that Mr Romanski appears to attempt to identify that he also seeks to rely on s 424 of the IR Act.[41] This was further confirmed during the course of submissions.[41] See Marek Romanski, 'Form 5 – Application to appeal', Application in Romanski v Stone, C/2024/20, Consequently, while the grounds of the appeal do not specifically address, in usual terms, that Mr Romanski applies for relief by way of prerogative order, the grounds of appeal do contend that the Industrial Magistrate did not exercise their jurisdiction according to law and/or the Industrial Magistrate exceeded their jurisdiction.[42] On this basis, the Court is content to accept that Mr Romanski seeks relief pursuant to s 424(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of the IR Act.[42] See IR Act (n 20) s 424. As previously stated, the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal of the Industrial Magistrate's interlocutory decision as there is no statutorily provided avenue of appeal. That does not mean, however, that Mr Romanski is precluded from seeking a review of the Industrial Magistrate's decision in this Court. Section 424 of the IR Act grants jurisdiction and powers to the Industrial Court. Section 424(e)(i) and (ii) relevantly provides for relief by prerogative order in the following limited circumstances: (e)if the court is constituted by the president, exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court to ensure, by prerogative order or other appropriate process—(i)the commission and magistrates exercise their jurisdictions according to law; and(ii)the commission and magistrates do not exceed their jurisdictions. Section 424 of the IR Act provides a means for review, including in the absence of an avenue of appeal provided by statute, as discussed by Davis J in Tuesley as follows:[13] Given Australia's constitutional arrangements, decisions of inferior courts (such as the QIRC) must be amenable to review, at least where they have acted beyond jurisdiction. In the absence of any avenue of appeal provided by statute, that review is conducted pursuant to the inherent supervisory powers possessed by the superior court of the relevant jurisdiction. [14] This Court is a superior court of record whose President is a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland. However, in the absence of some relevant statutory provision, the supervisory jurisdiction rests with the Supreme Court of Queensland, not in individual judges sitting in some other court.[43][43] Tuesley (n 25) [13]-[14] (citations omitted).