Romanski v Stone; Black v Stone

[2024] QMC 2

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Romanski v. Stone; Black v. Stone [2024] QMC 2

PARTIES:

MAREK ROMANSKI

(Applicant)

V

MARK DOUGLAS STONE (Resources Safety and Health Queensland)

(Respondent)

PARTIES:

DENNIS BLACK

(Applicant)

V

MARK DOUGLAS STONE (Resources Safety and Health Queensland)

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG – 001887705/21(9)

MAG – 00188647/21(9)

DIVISION:

Industrial Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25/01/2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14/12/2023

MAGISTRATE:

Pinder

ORDER:

1. THE APPLICATION IN RESPECT OF THE RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS TO STRIKE OUT PARAGRAPHS 15(D), 86(B)(C), 88(A)(B), 89, 90, 93 – 95, 97, 100 – 103 IS REFUSED.

2. THAT PARAGRAPHS 18 AND PARAGRAPHS 115, 116, AND 117 OF THE RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS BE STRUCK OUT.

3. I WILL HEAR THE PARTIES FURTHER IN RESPECT OF ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTIONS ORDERS AND COSTS.

CATCHWORDS:

Coal Mine Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld).

Industrial Relations Tribunal Rules 2011 (Qld).

Tasty Chicks Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2011) 245 CLR 446.

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 44 FLR 41.

Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW).

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Inc v Minister for Health, Housing, and Community Services (1992) 39 FCR 225.

Comcare v Burton (1998) 157 ALR 522.

Dawson v Greyhound Racing Victoria (2017) VSC 123.

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1988 (Vic).

Racing Act 1958 (Vic).

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286.

Dalliston v Taylor & Anor (2015) ICQ 017.

COUNSEL: 

N. Boyd for Applicant Romanski

C.A. Massy for Applicant Black

M.T. Hickey OAM with Ms S M Derrington & Mr L C Brabazon   for Respondent

SOLICITORS:

McGinnes & Associates Lawyers for first and second Applicant

Resources Safety & Health Queensland for Respondent

Applications in an existing proceeding

1. The appellants Romanski and Black have both filed applications in an existing proceeding seeking that identified paragraphs in the respondent’s Statement of Contentions be struck out.

1. In the alternative, further directions are sought including further disclosure by the respondent.

1. The applicant Romanski seeks orders:

(1)    That paragraphs 15(d), 86(b)(c), 89, 90, 93 – 95, 97, 100, 101-103 of the respondent’s Statement of Contentions be struck out.

(2)    Alternatively, that:

(a)     The applicant file and serve an answer to the respondent’s Statement of Contentions by 4pm on 23 November 2023;

(b)     The respondent make disclosure of any and all documents directly relevant to the allegations at paragraphs 15(d), 86(b)(c), 89, 90, 93 – 95, 97, 100, 101-103 of the respondent’s Statement of Contentions by 30 November 2023;

(c)     The applicant file and serve any further affidavits by 4:00pm on 14 December 2023;

(d)     Paragraphs 9-22 of the Order of 24 August 2023 be varied with dates to be fixed after consultation between the parties and the Court.

1. The Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of and incidental to this application, including costs thrown away.

1. The applicant Black seeks orders:

1. That paragraphs 18 and 115 – 117 of the…