Talay v Workers' Compensation Regulator

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Talay v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 273
PARTIES:	Talay, Revelyn (Applicant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	B/2025/84
PROCEEDING:	Application to re-open proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	14 October 2025
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	O'Neill IC On the papers
ORDER:	The order contained in paragraph [67] of these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION ON A LAPSED PROCEEDING – Applicant is a worker who made an application for workers' compensation pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – claim not accepted by a review decision of the Respondent – Applicant appealed against the review decision – appeal placed in abeyance on 24 April 2024 and lapsed on 24 April 2025 – Applicant applied for an order pursuant to r 230(2) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 to take further action in respect of her appeal – consideration of whether the Applicant's appeal had lapsed within the meaning of r 230(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 – consideration of whether the Applicant had taken action in relation to its appeal for at least one year since the last action was taken – Applicant had taken action in relation to its appeal at least one year since the last action was taken – r 230(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 not enlivened such that the Applicant's appeal did not lapse – decision made pursuant to s 451(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 that Applicant's appeal has not lapsed.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 451, s 541 and s 553 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 41, r 46 and r 230 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 210 and r 211 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 553 Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Standfield & Smith (A Firm) [2012] QCA 272 Bale v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 235 Barnes v Q-Comp & Hatch Pty Ltd [2017] QIRC 025 CitiCorp Australia Limited v Metropolitan Public Abattoir Board [1991] QSCFC 59; [1992] 1 Qd R 592 Ngan Thanh Phan t/as Right Choices Construction Queensland v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Anor [2022] QIRC 251 Pritchard v Q-COMP [2013] QIRC 18 State of Queensland (Office of the Governor) v Workers' Compensation Regulator and Anor [2025] QIRC 210 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 10 Vibe Allerup v Heka Pty Ltd t/a Brisbane Dental Group (1999) 160 QGIG 112

Reasons for Decision

Ms Revelyn Talay ('the Applicant') was employed as an aged care worker with OzCare ('the employer').
The Applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Registry in matter WC/2023/180 on 7 December 2023 in respect of an aggravation of a right wrist injury sustained on 24 January 2023.
A directions order was issued by the Commission on 11 December 2023 requiring the parties to take the usual steps to prepare the matter for hearing.
The Applicant filed her Statement of Facts and Contentions on 26 February 2024. The Respondent filed its Statement of Facts and Contentions on 2 April 2024.
At the request of the Applicant, the appeal was placed in abeyance on 24 April 2024 to enable the Applicant to obtain additional expert medical evidence in support of her claim.[1]

[1] Affidavit of Kate Harris filed 10 October 2025, [4].
The appeal lapsed on 24 April 2025.
The Applicant filed a General Application on 25 September 2025 seeking to have the appeal 're-opened' pursuant to s 484 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act'). The Applicant was subsequently given leave to amend the application to seek to have the appeal re-instated pursuant to rule 230(2) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Rules') and s 451 of the IR Act.
Having regard to the application, the affidavit of Ms Harris and the submissions made by the Applicant, there are two questions for my determination:

•Did the Applicant's appeal lapse by application of r 230(1) of the Rules?

• If so, pursuant to rr 230(2) and (3) of the Rules, should the Commission make an order allowing the Applicant to take further action on her appeal?
For the reasons that follow, the Applicant's appeal did not lapse because r 230(1) of the Rules was not enlivened, such that it becomes unnecessary to consider the application of r 230(2) of the Rules.
Relevant background
On 21 April 2022 the Applicant sustained a right wrist injury at work when she was assisting a patient during a chair to bed transfer. The Applicant made a successful application for workers' compensation benefits to WorkCover Queensland ('WorkCover') in respect of that injury.
The Applicant was off work from 21 April 2022 to 8 January 2023 receiving treatment for her wrist injury. The Applicant returned to work on a suitable duties plan from 9 January 2023.
On 24 January 2023 the Applicant was required by the employer to perform kitchen duties which were not part of the return to work plan.
While performing these kitchen duties on 24 January 2023 the appellant experienced an increase in, and aggravation of, her right wrist pain and symptoms and was further injured.
The Applicant lodged a further claim with WorkCover in respect of the aggravation of her wrist injury on 3 April 2023. The claim was rejected by WorkCover on 29 June 2023.
The Applicant sought a review of the WorkCover decision, and by reasons for decision dated 8 November 2023, the Respondent's review unit confirmed the rejection of the claim.
The Applicant filed the appeal in WC/2023/180 seeking to overturn the Respondent's confirmation of the rejection of her claim.
The affidavit of Ms Harris sets out the following timeline of events relevant to the application:
•On 8 April 2024 a medico-legal examination was scheduled for the Applicant to attend upon Dr Michael Thomas, Orthopaedic Surgeon on 22 August 2024.[2]

[2] Affidavit of Kate Harris filed 10 October 2025, [5].
•On 22 August 2024, the Applicant saw Dr Michael Thomas, Orthopaedic Surgeon.[3]

[3] Ibid, [6].
•On 10 February 2025 the report of Dr Thomas was received by the Applicant's solicitors, after numerous attempts to follow up the report.[4]

[4] Ibid, [7] and Exhibit "KJH-1" – medical report of Dr Thomas, Orthopaedic Surgeon dated 6 January 2025.
•On 5 March 2025 Ms Harris provided a copy of the report of Dr Thomas to the Respondent with a request for the Respondent to review their decision to defend the appeal.[5]

[5] Ibid, [8] and Exhibit :KJH-2" – letter to the Respondent dated 5 March 2025.
•On 6 May 2025 Ms Harris emailed the Respondent seeking to follow up their position.[6]

[6] Affidavit of Kate Harris filed 10 October 2025, [10] and Exhibit "KJH-3".
•On 7 May 2025 Ms Harris received an email from the Respondent discussing the lapsed appeal, and noting that the Respondent would consent to an Application that the appeal be reinstated.[7]

•Ms Harris then deposes to a number of requests made by the Respondent for further information including the letter of instruction to Dr Thomas, and other medical information, and her compliance in providing that information to the Respondent in the period from 9 May 2025 to 7 August 2025. The last document provided to the Respondent being a referral of the Applicant for an MRI scan.[8]

•On 20 August 2025, Ms Harris received correspondence from the Respondent confirming its intention to continue defending the appeal.[9]
[7] Ibid, [11] and Exhibit "KJH-4" – email from the Respondent dated 7 May 2025.
[8] Ibid, [12]-[22] and Exhibits "KJH-5" to "KJH-14".
[9] Ibid, [23] and Exhibit "KJH-16" – email from the Respondent dated 20 August 2025.
As noted above, the Applicant filed a general application on 25 September 2025 seeking to have the appeal 're-opened' pursuant to s 484 of the IR Act (this is despite the appeal not having been struck out as opposed to it lapsing).
The application was mentioned on 7 October 2025. At the mention the Respondent's representative confirmed that the Respondent did not intend to oppose the application.
The Commission raised with the Applicant's representative that decisions from the Commission including Ngan Thanh Phan t/as Right Choices Construction Queensland v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Anor[10] and State of Queensland (Office of the Governor) v Workers' Compensation Regulator and Anor[11] confirm that s 484 of the IR Act does not provide a source of power to re-open a workers' compensation appeal.

[10] [2022] QIRC 251.
[11] [2025] QIRC 210.
The parties were directed to provide submissions to the Commission addressing the power of the Commission to 're-open' a workers' compensation appeal.
The Applicant filed her submissions on 10 October 2025 and now correctly identifies the relief being sought is pursuant to r 230(2) of the Rules and s 451 of the IR Act for leave to proceed with the appeal.
At a further mention held on 14 October 2025, the Applicant was given leave to amend the Form 2 Application to reflect the relief sought in the Applicant's submissions. At the mention the Commission also waived further compliance by the Applicant with rule 230(3) of the Rules pursuant to s 539(k) of the IR Act.
Relevant legislation
Chapter 11, pt 2, div 3 of the IR Act sets out the functions, jurisdiction and general powers of the Commission. Section 451 of the Act is contained in that division and relevantly provides:
451 General powers
(1)The Commission has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions.
(2)Without limiting subsection (1), the commission in proceedings may-
(a)give directions about the hearing of a matter; or
(b)make a decision it considers appropriate, irrespective of the relief sought by a party; or
(c)make an order it considers appropriate.
Section 553 of the IR Act provides:
553 General application of provisions
The provisions of this Act providing for the powers of and procedures before the court, the commission or an Industrial Magistrates Court apply in relation to the jurisdiction of the court, the commission or an Industrial Magistrates Court under this Act or another Act, unless the contrary intention appears.
Rule 230 of the IR Rules provides:
230     Lapse of proceeding after at least 1 year's delay
(1)      This rule applies if-
  (a)      an application starting a proceeding has been filed; and
(b)no action has been taken by the applicant in relation to the application for at least 1 year since the last action was taken by the applicant in the application.
(2)A party may only take further action on the application with an order of the court, commission or registrar.
(3)An application for an order under subrule (2) must be in the approved form and state the following-
(a)the steps taken in the proceeding;
(b)an explanation for the circumstances of the delay;
(c)the steps (including a timetable) proposed to be taken to progress the proceeding;
(d)any prejudice suffered or likely to be suffered by another party to the proceeding if the application starting the proceeding is not struck out;
(e)the merits of the proceeding
(f)why the court, commission or registrar should make the order despite the delay.
Relevant authorities
His Honour Deputy President Merrell considered the operation of r 230 of the Rules in State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Workers Compensation Regulator ('Queensland Health').[12] His Honour observed as follows:
[15]First, assuming that the elements in r 230(1) of the Rules are made out, it is for a party who wishes to take further action on the application which started a proceeding which has been filed, to show there is good reason for excepting the proceedings from the general prohibition imposed by r 230(1) of the Rules.
[16]Secondly, the type of action contemplated in r 230(1)(b) and r 230(2) is action taken in moving the matter towards judgment or the relief sought, or an act or activity that has the characteristic of carrying the cause or action forward.
[17]Thirdly, in determining an application under r 230(2) of the Rules, the factors to which regard should be had are those referred to in r 230(3).[13]
[12] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 10.
[13] Queensland Health (n 3), [15]-[17] per Merrell DP.

The same conclusion that r 230(3) identified the factors to be considered in an application for leave to proceed was made by Deputy President O'Connor (as his Honour then was) in Barnes v Q-Comp & Hatch Pty Ltd.[14]
[14] [2017] QIRC 025 at [30] per O'Connor DP.
Applicant's submissions
The Applicant's submissions largely repeat the timeline set out in Ms Harris' affidavit which has been summarised above. The submissions note that the Applicant provided instructions to lodge the present application on 18 September 2025.
The submissions record that the Applicant is seeking the Commission to make an order allowing the Applicant to take further action on the substantive appeal proceeding pursuant to r 230(2) of the Rules, despite the delay, because it is in the interests of justice to do so.
The Applicant contends that it is in the interests of justice that she be allowed an opportunity to proceed with her appeal now that she has obtained the medical evidence which was being sought. The Applicant submits that it would be unjust to deny her that opportunity in the circumstances where the Applicant was taking steps to move the proceeding towards the relief sought, by obtaining necessary medical evidence in support of her claim.
The Applicant submits that the Commission, pursuant to s 451 of the IR Act, should use its general powers to make the appropriate order that further action can be taken on the appeal proceeding.
The Applicant further submits that the Commission, pursuant to s 544(1)(a) of the IR Act, should make the decision that the Applicant be allowed to take further action on the appeal proceeding, as that is in the interests of justice in this proceeding.
In support of the application, the Applicant cites the decision of Commissioner Caddie in Bale v Workers' Compensation Regulator ('Bale'). [15]

[15] [2024] QIRC 235.
The Applicant submits that the Commission in Bale held pursuant to s 541 of the IR Act, that the Commission could use its general powers to make the appropriate order that further action can be taken on the appeal proceeding as it was in the interests of justice.
Bale involved a similar scenario in which a workers' compensation appeal had lapsed and the appellant sought leave to take a further step in the proceeding. In that matter Industrial Commissioner Caddie firstly determined that the appeal had lapsed pursuant to r 230(1) of the Rules because the actions taken by the appellant in respect of other proceedings did not constitute her taking actions within the context of the substantive appeal which had the characteristic of carrying the cause or action forward.[16]
[16] Ibid, [44] per Caddie IC.

Industrial Commissioner Caddie, however, accepted that the actions taken by the appellant in other proceedings provided an explanation for the delay in the workers' compensation appeal. The Commission ultimately determined that it was an appropriate case for an order to be made that the appellant may take further action on the appeal.
The Applicant concludes her submissions by submitting that she has:
•     Demonstrated that there is good reason for excepting the proceedings from the general prohibition imposed by r 230(1) of the Rules, particularly because it is in the interests of justice to allow the proceedings to continue;

•     Demonstrated that in accordance with r 230(3) of the Rules, active steps were taken to move the matter towards judgment or the relief sought, and has confirmed the reasons for the delay;

•     Has in accordance with r 230(3)(c) proposed a timetable of steps to be taken to progress the proceeding;
Respondent's submissions
At the further Mention held on 14 October 2025, the Respondent's representative Mr Beale confirmed that the Respondent did not intend to file submissions and the position of the Respondent remained that it consented to the application.

Consideration
Did the Applicant's appeal lapse because of the application of r 230(1) of the Rules?
The affidavit of Ms Harris establishes that the appeal was placed into abeyance at the request of the Applicant's solicitors on 24 April 2024.[17]

[17] Affidavit of Ms Harris (n 1), [4].
In response to that request a Further Directions Order was issued by the Industrial Registry on 24 April 2024 which vacated the directions made in the earlier Directions Order dated 11 December 2023. The email sent to the parties forwarding the new Directions Order noted:
Please note the Appellant is responsible for their matter proceeding. If no action, (formal step having the effect of moving the application toward the relief sought) is taken by the Appellant to progress their matter within 12 months of the last action, the matter will lapse pursuant to rule 230 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
The Applicant's submissions note that on 8 April 2024, a medico-legal examination was arranged for the Applicant to be examined by Dr Thomas, Orthopaedic Surgeon on 22 August 2024.[18]

[18] Applicant's submissions filed 10 October 2025, [5].
The Applicant's submissions further indicate that on 22 July 2024 a medico-legal examination was scheduled for the Applicant to attend upon Ms Katie Grice, Occupational Therapist on 11 September 2024.[19] The Applicant respectively saw:

·Dr Thomas on 22 August 2024; and
·Ms Grice on 11 September 2024.[20]
[19] Ibid, [6].
[20] Ibid, [7]-[8].
The Applicant's submissions confirm that the medical report of Ms Grice was received by the Applicant's solicitors on 30 September 2024.[21] There is no indication in either Ms Harris' affidavit or the Applicant's submissions that the report of Ms Grice was disclosed to the Respondent.

[21] Applicant's submissions (n 18), [9].
The affidavit of Ms Harris confirms that there were delays in receiving the medical report of Dr Thomas, despite a number of attempts to follow up on that report, it was ultimately received on 10 February 2025.[22] Ms Harris goes on to confirm that the report of Dr Thomas was disclosed to the Respondent on 5 March 2025 (and therefore prior to the appeal being lapsed on 24 April 2025).[23]

[22] Affidavit of Ms Harris (n 1), [7].
[23] Ibid, [8].
The issue is whether the provision of the medical report of Dr Thomas to the Respondent constituted the Applicant taking a step or action in the proceeding that has the characteristic of carrying the cause or action forward.
The relevant provisions which govern workers' compensation appeals in the Commission are contained in Chapter 3, Part 3 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the WCR Act').
Section 553(1) of the WCR Act relevantly provides that:
(1) The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, chapter 7, part 2 and chapter 9, part 4 and the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 apply to an appeal under this division with necessary changes.
Chapter 7, Part 2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 ('the UCPR') provides for the process of disclosure by parties to litigation. Section 210 of the UCPR is contained within Subdivision 1 of Division 2 of Part 2 and deals with the disclosure and inspection of documents. Section 210 provides that in a proceeding, disclosure is the delivery or production of documents in accordance with this division.

Section 211 of the UCPR relevantly provides:
211 Duty of disclosure
(1)A party to a proceeding has a duty to disclose to each other party each document—
(a)in the possession or under the control of the first party; and
(b)directly relevant to an allegation in issue in the pleadings; and
(c)if there are no pleadings—directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding.
I also note that r 46 of the Rules also relevantly provides:
46 Duty of disclosure
(1)If a directions order requiring disclosure of documents is made, a party must disclose any document that—
(a)is directly relevant to the proceeding or a matter in issue in the proceeding; and
(b)is in, or comes into, the possession of the party.
(2)A party must act under subrule (1) until the proceeding is concluded or the matter in issue is admitted, withdrawn, struck out or otherwise disposed of.
(3)Subrule (1) does not apply to a document in relation to which there is a valid claim to privilege from disclosure.
The original Directions Order dated 11 December 2023 provided the usual orders for the preparation of a list of documents by both parties and provisions of copies of documents upon request. As noted above, that Directions Order was vacated by the further Directions Order dated 24 April 2024.
Despite the vacation of the initial Directions Order, the duty of disclosure is a continuing obligation.[24]

[24] Pritchard v Q-COMP [2013] QIRC 18, at [16] per Linnane VP.
In Vibe Allerup v Heka Pty Ltd t/a Brisbane Dental Group,[25] Chief Commissioner Hall (as his Honour then was) addressed what would constitute an 'action' by a party and rejected the contention that the expression 'any action' should be construed to mean "something in the nature of a formal step, at least a step taken by the litigant in the prosecution of the action, being a step required by the rules". The Chief Commissioner concluded, in the particular circumstances of that matter, that 'action' might include communication between solicitors, and discovery and inspection of documents, if such processes had been 'requested and had occurred'.

[25] (1999) 160 QGIG 112.
In dealing with the same type of application brought by the Applicant in State of Queensland, again in the context of a workers' compensation appeal, Deputy President Merrell accepted the argument of the applicant, that its action (after obtaining a further medical report from Dr Varghese, Psychiatrist) of disclosing that additional medical report to the Workers' Compensation Regulator constituted action taken by the State in relation to its appeal within the meaning of r 230(1)(b) of the Rules.[26]

[26] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 010, [30].
Deputy President Merrell provided the following reasoning (partly excerpted below) for that conclusion:
[35]     An action, therefore, within the meaning of r 230(1)(b) of the Rules, need not be a step taken or act done in the Commission or the Industrial Registry.[27] Further, it does not need to be something required by the Rules. In Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Standfield & Smith (A Firm)[28] Margaret McMurdo P relevantly stated in respect of r 389 of the UCPR:

[27] His Honour cited for this proposition: CitiCorp Australia Limited v Metropolitan Public Abattoir Board [1991] QSCFC 59;[1992] 1 Qd R 592 ('CitiCorp').
[28] [2012] QCA 272, [3] per McMurdo P.
[3] The expression "step" is not defined in the UCPR. Its ordinary meaning in this context is: "a move or proceeding, as towards some end or in the general course of action: the first step towards peace". Whether a step has been taken in a particular proceeding will turn on the pertinent circumstances in that case. It is clear from the authorities discussed by Peter Lyons J that, to be a step under r 389 it must, consistent with that word's ordinary meaning, progress the action towards a conclusion. I agree with Peter Lyons J that it is not necessary the step be something required by the UCPR. For example, the filing and service of a reply or a subsequent pleading would usually amount to a step in the action.[29]
[29] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 010, [35] per Merrell DP.
…
[38] On the evidence before me, it is unclear whether the State, in disclosing Dr Varghese's report to the Regulator, was acting under its obligation pursuant to the UCPR or pursuant to an earlier Directions Order issued by the Commission that required disclosure. In any event, there was clearly an obligation on the State to disclose Dr Varghese's report to the Regulator. The State did so on 2 December 2022.
…
[40]     Fourthly, having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the disclosure of Dr Varghese's report by the State to the Regulator on 2 December 2022 was, in my view, action taken by the State in relation to its appeal within the meaning of r 230(1)(b) of the Rules. This is consistent with authority.46 Further, the disclosure of Dr Varghese's report had the characteristic of carrying the State's appeal forward. This is because the material issue between the parties is whether the worker had suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act. Dr Varghese's report deals with that issue.

[41]     Further, that disclosure was action taken within one year of the conference. In those circumstances, r 230(1) of the Rules was not enlivened because the element contained in r 230(1)(b) was not met. For these reasons, the State's appeal had not lapsed as at 23 February 2023, being the date the Industrial Registry determined the appeal had lapsed. There is no discretion that the Commission can exercise pursuant to r 230(2) of the Rules.
In light of the authorities discussed above, I am satisfied that the action of the Applicant in disclosing the medical report of Dr Thomas on 5 March 2025 to the Respondent, in compliance with the Applicant's ongoing obligation of disclosure, constituted the Applicant taking a step or action in the proceeding which has the characteristic of carrying the cause or action forward.
The Respondent filed its Statement of Facts and Contention in the Industrial Registry on 2 April 2024. That appears to be the last step or action in the proceeding taken by either party.
The disclosure of the medical report of Dr Thomas to the Respondent occurred on 5 March 2025, and therefore within 12 months of the step taken by the Respondent on 2 April 2024.
At the mention held on 14 October 2025 the Respondent confirmed that it had been provided with a copy of the medical report of Dr Thomas on 5 March 2025, and further that the Respondent agreed that this constituted a step being taken in appeal WC/2023/180.
Given the above, I reach the same conclusion that his Honour Deputy President Merrell reached in State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Workers' Compensation Regulator,[30] that in those circumstances, r 230(1) of the Rules is not enlivened because the element contained in r 230(1)(b) was not met.

[30] [2024] QIRC 010, [41].
As a consequence, the Applicant's appeal had not lapsed as at 24 April 2025, when the Industrial Registry apparently determined that the appeal had lapsed. Given this, there is no discretion that the Commission can exercise pursuant to r 230(2) of the Rules.
It is also not necessary for the Commission to consider the second issue identified in paragraph [8] above.
In State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Workers' Compensation Regulator,[31] his Honour considered s 553 and the general powers contained in s 451 of the IR Act and relevantly held:

[45] I can see no provision in ch 13, pt 3, div 1 of the Act, which discloses a contrary intention such that the general powers conferred on the Commission, by virtue of s 451 of the IR Act, would not be available to it in the circumstances of the present case.
[46] As a consequence, pursuant to s 451(2)(b) of the IR Act, I decide that the State's appeal did not lapse pursuant to r 230(1) of the Rules as of 23 February 2023.

[31] Ibid, [45]-[46] per Merrell DP.

I intend to adopt the same approach in determining the present application. Pursuant to s 451(2)(b) of the IR Act, I decide that the Applicant's appeal did not lapse pursuant to r 230(1) of the Rules as of 24 April 2025.
In the application filed by the Applicant on 25 September 2025, the Applicant has proposed a set of further directions to finalise the preparation of the appeal for hearing. This appears to be an appropriate course of action to be taken by both parties. I direct the parties to confer and file a Draft Further Directions Order in the Industrial Registry on or before 4:00 pm on Friday, 31 October 2025.
Order
I make the following Order:
Pursuant to r 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, the parties to the Applicant's appeal in Matter WC/2023/180 are to confer and file in the Industrial Registry a Draft Further Directions Order to finalise the preparation of the appeal for hearing on or before 4:00 pm on 31 October 2025.

[2025] QIRC 273

14 October 2025