State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Nield

Case [2025] ICQ 21

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Nield [2025] ICQ 021

PARTIES:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND (QUEENSLAND HEALTH)

(appellant)
v
SHIRLEY NIELD

(respondent)

FILE NO:

C/2023/43

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 May 2024

MEMBER:

Davis J, President

ORDERS:

1.    Appeal allowed.

2.    The orders made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission are set aside.

3.    Ms Nield’s appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission is dismissed.

4.    By 4.00 pm on 14 October 2025 the parties file and serve written submissions on costs.

5.    By 4.00 pm on 21 October 2025 either party may file and serve a notice of intention to make oral submissions on costs.

6.    In the absence of any notice being filed by 4.00 pm on 28 October 2025, the question of costs will be decided on the written submissions without further oral hearing.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – where the respondent was employed by the appellant – where the respondent was employed as a clinical nurse – where the respondent had a grievance with her unit manager – where the respondent gathered evidence in support of her grievance – where the respondent accessed computer databases and emailed sensitive material to her private email address – where the appellant found that conduct to be “misconduct” – where the respondent appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – where the Commission allowed the appeal – where the appellant appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland – whether the conduct was misconduct

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 187, s 193, s 194
Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), s 91, s 313

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 557, s 565

A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society New South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253; [2004] HCA 1, cited
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 233, cited
Australian Workers’ Union of Employees, Queensland v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services [2020] QIRC 067, followed
Ball v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2021] QIRC 116, cited
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, followed
In Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409; [1947] HCA 53, cited
Lam v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services [2021] ICQ 010, cited
Mathieu v Higgins[2008] QSC 209, considered
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsand Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40, followed
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21, cited
Nield v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 294, related
Pillai v Messiter[No 2] (1989) 16 NSWLR 197, considered
Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 244 CLR 144; [2011] HCA 32, cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, cited
R…

Continue reading State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Nield

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Nield [2025] ICQ 21
Case
[2025] ICQ 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court is an appeal by the State of Queensland, represented by Queensland Health, against a decision made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) that dismissed a finding of misconduct against Shirley Nield, a clinical nurse employed by Queensland Health. The central issue in this case is whether Nield's actions in accessing and emailing sensitive patient information to her private email address constituted misconduct under the Public Service Act 2008.

The court was tasked with determining whether Nield's conduct fell within the definition of misconduct as provided under section 187(4)(a) of the Public Service Act 2008, which encompasses inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity. Additionally, the court considered whether Nield contravened the Queensland Public Service Code of Conduct by improperly using official information. The Commission had previously ruled in Nield's favour, finding that her actions did not constitute misconduct, a decision that Queensland Health now appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland.

The court examined the evidence presented by Nield in support of her complaint against her unit manager, including her access to and dissemination of sensitive information. The court considered the provisions of the Public Service Act and the Queensland Public Service Code of Conduct, focusing on the obligations of public servants to handle official information appropriately. The court found that Nield's actions of accessing and emailing sensitive patient information without proper authorisation constituted misconduct, reversing the Commission's decision and reinstating the original finding against Nield.

The Industrial Court of Queensland allowed the appeal by the State of Queensland, setting aside the decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. Consequently, Nield's appeal was dismissed, and the original finding of misconduct was reinstated. The court ordered that written submissions on costs be filed and served by 14 October 2025, with an option for oral submissions if a notice is filed by 21 October 2025. If no such notice is filed by 28 October 2025, the question of costs will be decided based on the written submissions without further oral hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The orders made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission are set aside.

3. Ms Nield’s appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission is dismissed.

4. By 4.00 pm on 14 October 2025 the parties file and serve written submissions on costs.

5. By 4.00 pm on 21 October 2025 either party may file and serve a notice of intention to make oral submissions on costs.

6. In the absence of any notice being filed by 4.00 pm on 28 October 2025, the question of costs will be decided on the written submissions without further oral hearing.

Background

Background to the litigation

The State appeals against a decision made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission which set aside a finding against the respondent Shirley Nield that she was guilty of misconduct in the course of her employment.[1][1]Nield v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 294.Background Ms Nield is a clinical nurse employed in the neuroscience rehabilitation unit at the Gold Coast University Hospital which is under the auspices of the Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (the Service). Ms Nield is an active member of the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union. She has served as a union representative since 2020 and a delegate since 2022. Ms Nield’s nurse unit manager was Susan Jones. The Assistant Director of Nursing at the hospital was Sue Samuels. The relevant Union representative who aided Ms Nield was Ms Maddi Heathfield. Prior to March 2020, Ms Nield held concerns over the conduct of Ms Jones. Over a period from early March 2020 to mid-October 2021, and with the assistance of Ms Heathfield, Ms Nield collected evidence against Ms Jones which would ultimately form the basis of a complaint which she made to Ms Samuels in October 2021. In the course of collecting the evidence to substantiate her compliant against Ms Jones, Ms Nield accessed databases under the control of the Service. She then emailed some documents to her own private email address, and sometimes third parties, although that was very limited. In October 2021, Ms Nield lodged her complaint against Ms Jones with Ms Samuels. By her letter to Ms Nield dated 17 January 2022, Ms Samuels dismissed Ms Nield’s complaint and also observed that some of the material which had been provided to support the complaint contained “health information”. Health information is information over which confidentiality obligations arise. On 24 October 2022, a show cause notice was issued to Ms Nield by Mr Grant Brown, Executor Director People and Operations for the Service. The notice particularised 11 allegations against Ms Nield. By allegation 1, it was asserted that Ms Nield accessed a file note of a meeting on 5 March 2020 concerning a particular patient at the hospital. Allegations 2 to 11 are all similar in that they allege that Ms Nield emailed documents to herself at her private email address, and in some cases to third parties. An example is allegation 2, which reads: “Allegation twoOn 5 March 2020 you failed to take reasonable steps to protect information collected and/or stored by Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service when you emailed yourself a file note completed by Susan Jones without approval or delegated authority.” The show cause notice refers to “the Act”, which is a reference to the Public Service Act 2008, which has since been repealed and replaced by the Public Sector Act 2022. Mr Brown’s letter went on to explain why the alleged conduct may give grounds for discipline: “Possible grounds for disciplineHaving considered the information currently available to me in respect of Allegations one to eleven, I consider that you may be liable to disciplinary findings on the following basis:a) Pursuant to section 187(1)(b) of the Act, in that you may be guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of section 187(4)(a) of the PSA.Further, or in the alternative,b)Pursuant to section 187(1)(g) of the Act, in that you may have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a relevant standard of conduct in a way that is sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action, with the relevant standard applying to you under an approved code of conduct under the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994, being the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service (the Code), specifically:Clause 3.1 of the code which provides as follows:3.1 Commit to our roles in public serviceOur role is to undertake our duties, and to give effect to the policies of the elected government, regardless of its political complexion.We will:· Comply with the laws of State, Australian and local governments· Comply with all relevant awards, certified agreements, subsidiary agreements, directives, whole-of-government policies and standards, and· Adhere to the policies, organisational values and organisational documents of our employing agency.And/orClause 4.1 of the code which provides as follows:4.1 Ensure diligence in public administrationWe have an obligation to seek to achieve high standards of public administration and perform our duties to the best of our abilities.We will:· Exercise our lawful powers and authority with care and for the purpose for which these were granted, and· Comply with all reasonable and lawful instructions, whether or not we personally agree with a given policy direction.And/orClause 4.4 of the code which provides as follows:4.4. Ensure appropriate use and disclosure of official information.Information privacy legislation protects against the misuse of personal information and we have an obligation to ensure the lawful collection and handling of personal information.In addition, we will:· Treat official information with care and use it only for the purpose for which it was collected or authorised· Store official information securely, and limit access to those persons requiring it for legitimate purposes.”

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

Full text does not contain this section.