Trudu v Gillard

[2011] QCAT 114

CITATION:		Trudu v Gillard [2011] QCAT 114
PARTIES:	Dr Alfonso G Trudu
v
The Hon Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia

APPLICATION NUMBER:   GAR040-11

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     On the papers

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON: 24 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The tribunal directs the principal registrar to reject the application pursuant to s 35(7) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

CATCHWORDS : 

JURISDICTION – APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION – where applicant employed by Commonwealth body suffered injury – where investigation of injury dealt with under Commonwealth legislation – where applicant sought injunction to control use of material produced through investigation and the production of any material from future investigation – whether the tribunal has jurisdiction

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 9(1), 35, 59(1)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Dr Trudu filed an application for injunction against CSIRO, COMCARE, Health Services Australia, the Office of the Privacy Commission, and past and present employees and contractors of those entities.  The registrar rejected the application on the grounds that it does not comply with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, an enabling Act or the rules. Dr Trudu has applied for a review of the Registrar’s decision.

2. Dr Trudu was an employee of CSIRO.  He asserts that he suffered injury while working with CSIRO and that the management of his injury claims has prolonged and exacerbated his injury and loss.  The scope of the injunction Dr Trudu seeks is wide ranging but the effect of it is that he wants to control the use of materials and findings of investigations into his condition to date and to ensure that any future investigation is conducted fairly.

3. Dr Trudu says that the tribunal has jurisdiction because:

a)He is a resident of Queensland.

b)To the best of his knowledge, there are no provisions which exclude Commonwealth organisations or employees from the operation of Queensland law.

c)He has only recently become aware of his right to “protection” under Queensland workplace health and safety legislation.

1. The tribunal may only deal with matters that it is empowered to deal with under the QCAT Act or an enabling Act.[1]  The tribunal can only grant an injunction in a proceeding.[2]  That means that the tribunal must have jurisdiction by some other means before it can consider the question of whether or not to grant an injunction.  It will only have jurisdiction if it is conferred by another Act.

   [1] Section 9(1) QCAT Act.

   [2] Section 59(1) QCAT Act.

2. Dr Trudu refers to workplace health and safety legislation.  The Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 does not give the tribunal any jurisdiction.

3. He also refers to the Australian Public Service Act 1999 (Cth).  As one might expect from a piece of Commonwealth legislation, it does not confer jurisdiction on this tribunal.  The material submitted in support of Dr Trudu’s application refers to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). That, too, is Commonwealth legislation which does not confer jurisdiction on the tribunal.

4. This tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider Dr Trudu’s application for an injunction.  The application must be rejected and I direct the principal registrar accordingly.