Witthahn v Wakefield

Case [2025] QSC 164

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Witthahn v Wakefield [2025] QSC 164

PARTIES:

BERNARD WITTHAHN

(first plaintiff)

LUKE WILLIAMS
(second plaintiff)

CARL LEGROS
(third plaintiff)

PAUL CANE
(fourth plaintiff)

v
JOHN WAKEFIELD IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SERVICES AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND HEALTH

(first defendant)

THERESA HODGES
(second defendant)

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(third defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 14485 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2025

JUDGE:

Treston J

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to r 16(g) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and s 103K(1)(b) and (e) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), the proceeding be stayed.

2.   The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding (including this application) on a standard basis to be agreed or assessed.
CATCHWORDS:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs bring a claim as representative parties against the defendants seeking relief under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (IR Act) – where the defendants challenge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear the plaintiffs’ claim on the basis that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) is the proper forum for the dispute – where the plaintiffs contend the dispute is properly a matter between a resident of a State and another State and is within federal jurisdiction per s 75 (iv) of the Constitution – where the plaintiffs contend that in the alternative, the matter otherwise falls within s 76 as one arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation – where the plaintiffs contend the proceedings should therefore be heard by the Supreme Court invested with federal jurisdiction but cannot be heard by the QIRC which does not have jurisdiction because it is it not a “court of a State” in which federal jurisdiction can be invested pursuant to s 77(iii) of the Constitution – whether there is a justiciable controversy of a federal matter that engages the judicial power of the Commonwealth pursuant to either s 75(iv) or s 76 of the Constitution – whether the QIRC is a “court of a State” invested with federal jurisdiction within the meaning of the Constitution – whether the proceedings in the Supreme Court ought to be stayed

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – INCONSISTENCY OF LAWS (CONSTITUTION, s 109) – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs contend that there is a justiciable controversy of a federal matter that engages the judicial power of the Commonwealth and the matter should be heard by the Supreme Court invested with federal jurisdiction but cannot be heard by the QIRC – where the plaintiffs contend that s 450 of the IR Act is inconsistent with ss 39 and 58 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and to the extent of the inconsistency the State law is invalid pursuant…

Continue reading Witthahn v Wakefield

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Witthahn v Wakefield [2025] QSC 164
Case
[2025] QSC 164
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Witthahn v Wakefield, the plaintiffs, Witthahn and others, sought relief under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) against Wakefield and others. The defendants challenged the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) was the proper forum. The plaintiffs claimed the dispute was a matter between a resident of a State and another State, invoking federal jurisdiction under section 75(iv) of the Constitution. They also argued that the matter fell under section 76, as it arose under the Constitution or involved its interpretation. Alternatively, they contended that the QIRC, not being a "court of a State" as per section 77(iii), lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.

The court was tasked with determining whether the matter presented a justiciable controversy of a federal nature that engaged the judicial power of the Commonwealth. It also had to decide if the QIRC qualified as a "court of a State" under the Constitution and whether the proceedings in the Supreme Court should be stayed. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that section 450 of the Industrial Relations Act was inconsistent with sections 39 and 58 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), rendering the State law invalid under section 109 of the Constitution.

The court concluded that the QIRC was not a "court of a State" within the meaning of section 77(iii) of the Constitution and therefore did not possess federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the proceedings should not be stayed. The court also found that the QIRC had jurisdiction to hear the matter as it was an "industrial matter" within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act. Given that the QIRC had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, the proceedings in the Supreme Court were inappropriate. The court stayed the proceeding and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 16(g) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and s 103K(1)(b) and (e) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), the proceeding be stayed.

2. The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding (including this application) on a standard basis to be agreed or assessed.

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.