Stella v Griffith University - [2025] QCAT 115

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stella v Griffith University & Ors [2025] QCAT 115

PARTIES:

RICHARD STELLA

(applicant)

v

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

(first respondent)

CHRISTOPHER FLEMING

(second respondent)

ANDREAS CHAI

(third respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL074-24

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 March 2025

HEARING DATE:

25 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Traves

ORDERS:

1.     The application for a notice to produce filed by Richard Stella on 21 August 2024 is allowed in the following terms:

(a)     Griffith University produce the documents in the following categories, as described in Annexure A to this Order, to Richard Stella:

(i)        incident one documents;

(ii)      incident two and three documents;

(iii)     incident four documents; and

(iv)      incident five documents, by:

4:00pm on 18 April 2025.

2.     The application in respect of the category described as ‘race discrimination documents’ is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – NOTICE TO PRODUCE –where applicant seeks order for the disclosure of certain categories of documents pursuant to s 62(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) – whether notices to produce should be issued

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 62

Elks v Aitken Whyte Lawyers Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 123

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant has applied for orders requiring Griffith University to produce documents relevant to one or more of the five incidents that form the subject of his Complaint.
The Complaint comprises a series of five incidents which occurred between 2 August 2022 and 23 May 2023. The documents have been grouped by the applicant according to which incident[1] they relate and are described with some particularity. Annexure A to my Reasons is a list of the documents requested.
[1]I have referred to the incidents by number rather than letter, for example, incident A in the application is now incident one.
The incidents are as follows:
Incident One
A decision taken by the respondents on or around 22 August 2022 to initiate a ‘preliminary investigation’ of the applicant’s Twitter activity under the auspices of the University’s then Student Misconduct Policy.
Incident Two
The conduct of that investigation by the respondents between 22 August and 6 September 2022.
Incident Three
The conclusion reached by the respondents with respect to that investigation, communicated to the applicant on 6 September 2022.
Incident Four
A decision taken by the respondents on or before 26 September 2022 to exclude the applicant from a planned symposium.
Incident Five
A decision taken by the first respondent between 7 and 23 May 2023 that no action would be taken in response to the applicant’s formal complaint regarding the four incidents above.
What the parties say
The applicant contends that the documents sought provide the ‘evidentiary basis’ for establishing that his protected attributes (political belief or activity; race) constituted the sole or…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stella v Griffith University and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCAT 115
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the proceedings between Stella and Griffith University, the applicant, Richard Stella, sought an order for the disclosure of certain categories of documents from Griffith University, pursuant to section 62(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. The applicant argued that the disclosure of these documents was necessary for the proper administration of justice and to address allegations of misconduct by Griffith University. The court was tasked with determining whether notices to produce should be issued to the university.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to the issuance of notices to produce certain documents from Griffith University. The applicant contended that the documents were relevant to his case and necessary for the fair resolution of the proceedings. Griffith University opposed the application, arguing that the disclosure of certain categories of documents was not necessary or appropriate for the proceedings. The court needed to balance the principles of open justice and the proper administration of justice against the privacy and confidentiality interests of the university and its employees.

The court found that the applicant was entitled to the issuance of notices to produce for the categories of documents related to specific incidents, as these were relevant to the allegations of misconduct against Griffith University. The court held that these documents were necessary for the fair resolution of the proceedings and the principles of open justice outweighed the university's privacy and confidentiality interests. However, the court declined to order the disclosure of documents categorised as ‘race discrimination documents’ as these were not relevant to the matters in dispute and their disclosure was not necessary for the fair resolution of the proceedings.

The court ordered Griffith University to produce the specified categories of documents to Richard Stella by 4:00pm on 18 April 2025. The application for the disclosure of ‘race discrimination documents’ was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for a notice to produce filed by Richard Stella on 21 August 2024 is allowed in the following terms:

(a) Griffith University produce the documents in the following categories, as described in Annexure A to this Order, to Richard Stella:

(i) incident one documents;

(ii) incident two and three documents;

(iii) incident four documents; and

(iv) incident five documents, by:

4:00pm on 18 April 2025.

2. The application in respect of the category described as ‘race discrimination documents’ is refused.

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

Full text does not contain this section.