Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] ICQ 9

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 139

Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman [2011] FCA 975, cited

Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1, cited

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69, cited

Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QIRC 63, related

King Tide Company Pty Ltd v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 251, followed

Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72, followed

Zoiti-Licastro v Australian Taxation Office (2006) 154 IR 1, cited

The respondents were represented by the second and third respondents

• [1] The appellant, Debra Isermann, appeals a decision made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission[1] to summarily dismiss her application for compensation for an alleged breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

• [2] Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd, the first respondent (which I will call "the Company") conducts a business of inspecting houses and providing reports for use in the real estate industry. Karen Hancock (the second respondent) and Noel Hancock (the third respondent) control the Company.
• [3] Ms Isermann commenced her employment with the company on 7 June 2023. After doing some training work with another inspector employed by the Company, Ms Isermann met with Mr Hancock at a shopping centre at Mount Cotton.
• [4] Ms Isermann alleged that during her meeting with Mr Hancock, he said and did things which constituted discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual harassment.
• [5] In due course, the matter came to be conciliated in the Commission.
• [6] During the conciliation conference, the respondents produced footage taken by CCTV cameras within the shopping centre. It is common ground that the persons depicted in the footage are Ms Isermann and Mr Hancock, and that the occasion depicted in the footage is the meeting where the improper conduct allegedly occurred. The footage, which was produced does not show any improper conduct, but the footage only shows small parts of the meeting.
• [7] At the conference, which occurred on 15 August 2024, the respondents made an offer to Ms Isermann to settle the complaint. The Commissioner conducting the conference adjourned, giving Ms Isermann four days to consider the offer.
• [8] Consistently with usual practice, those parts of the conference which were not regarded as "private", and where all parties were present with the Commissioner in the conference room, were recorded. When the parties separated into private conference areas, there was no recording.
• [9] During the private sessions, the offer was made and it was agreed that the offer would be open for acceptance for four days.
• [10] Before the conference concluded, this exchange occurred:

"COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, we've resumed the recording. Thank you, parties, for your time in participating in these two conferences. Fortunately, we've been able to resolve the matter by agreement at this point, however, the respondents have made an offer for the consideration of the complainant and have agreed that the complainant can have until 4 o'clock on Monday next week to consider whether she will or won't accept the offer to resolve the matter by agreement. In the event that the complainant does accept the offer to resolve the matter by agreement, and what will occur is the respondents' representative will draft a deed of agreement in the usual terms which, as we've discussed, includes confidentiality, non-disparagement, full and final settlement of all matters, and a payment of a financial amount to the complainant upon both parties executing or signing the agreement, okay?

COMMISSIONER: And if that's a course that the parties adopt, then it's useful, Ms Isermann, if you provide your bank account details, current as of now, to the respondents' legal representative, so that there can be no quibble about the monies going into your correctly nominated account, okay?

COMMISSIONER: Now, in the event that you decline to accept the offer, as I've relayed to you, the respondents made clear that they would be raising that matter if this issue went all the way to a hearing and you lost, okay? I will look into the Form 29[2] issues that were, you know, let drift a little, so I'll follow those up, and I'll likely issue an order that they - that those two notices be complied with, as they weren't objected to within the requisite timeframe - - -

COMMISSIONER: - - - okay? Now, in the event that the complainant decides not to accept the offer, then as I mentioned, you'll let the Industrial Registry know that the matter's to be allocated to someone else to hear and decide - - -

COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right. I think that's it. Thanks very much, everyone." (emphasis added)

• [11] In the third line of the first passage recorded above, appears the word "fortunately". It is obvious from the context that there was an error in the transcription. The word should be "unfortunately".
• [12] Four days later, on 19 August 2024, Ms Isermann sent an email both to the Registrar and the respondents. That email was in these terms:

"I agree to the offer made by the respondents at conciliation, to finalise the matter. I understand an order will be drawn up by the QIRC, funds to be deposited as below." (emphasis added)

• [13] In the email were bank account details to facilitate a payment by the respondents of the agreed compensation amount to Ms Isermann.
• [14] On 21 August 2024, the Registrar responded to Ms Isermann:

"Thank you for your email confirming that you are accepting the Respondent's offer. The Commission does not make an "order" to this effect. In the usual course, the Respondent will prepare a deed for you to sign and then the funds will be deposited.

Once the funds have been deposited, please ensure to sign and file a Form 27 - Request to discontinue proceedings.

This email is sent on behalf of the Chambers of Industrial Commissioner McLennan."

• [15] There was no further correspondence between the Registrar and Ms Isermann until a Notice of Non-Party Disclosure was answered in circumstances which I now explain.
• [16] At the conciliation conference, Ms Isermann expressed concerns that the CCTV footage which was produced had been manipulated by unfair editing.

• [17] Ms Isermann had previously, on 22 March 2024, issued a Notice of Non-party Disclosure against Daniel Catanzaro of Powercat, an entity which is involved in the management of the shopping centre at Mount Cotton. That notice had not been complied with by the time of the conciliation conference. On 16 August 2024, Commissioner McLennan made orders to enforce that notice, including an order, relevantly:

"(1) Pursuant to r 64H(2) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), Daniel Catanzaro must comply with the Form 29 - Notice of Non-party Disclosure issued on 21 March 2024 by 27 August 2024.

(2) That the complainant must supply a copy of this order to Daniel Catanzaro by 4.00pm on 20 August 2024."

• [18] It can be seen that service of the notice upon Mr Catanzaro was to occur on 20 August 2024, which is the day after the deadline for acceptance of the offer. Commissioner McLennan explained in the conciliation conference that the orders she intended to make concerning the Notice of Non-party Disclosure would operate if Ms Isermann "decline[d] the offer".
• [19] Notwithstanding that the offer was accepted, Ms Isermann has, consistently with the express terms of the order, served the notice upon Mr Catanzaro.
• [20] On 27 August 2024, Mr Catanzaro produced what evidence he had in compliance with the order of 16 August 2024. In an email he explained that the recording system overwrites itself after a period, and so the recordings were now lost. He explained, that he had received an earlier request for the footage from Mr Hancock. Mr Hancock requested a download of footage over a two-hour period which, for technical reasons Mr Catanzaro explained, was not possible. Using his mobile telephone, he downloaded four short clips from the footage, which he sent to Mr Hancock. His full response to the Notice was:

RE: AD/2023/141 - Isermann & Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd and Hancock

I refer to the above matter and the order dated 16 August 2024 for information to be supplied by me pursuant to the Form 29 Notice of Non Party Disclosure and say as follows:

1. It is important to note that I am only an employee as a facilities manager of Powercat Realty Pty Ltd and I believe that the notice and order should in any event have been directed to my employer and not me.
2. Despite the above, I advise that I have with the consent of my employer provided all copies of records held by my employer and/or myself that relate to this matter and I believe that I have fully complied with the notice that was previously provided to me. I believe that the Complainant has mislead the tribunal about what has been provided by me.
3. I also wish to advise that prior to the first communication from the Third Respondent I had never met or had any dealings with the Third Respondent and to my knowledge, neither had my employer.
4. Similarly prior to the first contact from the Complainant on or about 8 March 2024 I had never met or had any dealings with the Complainant and to my knowledge, neither had my employer.
5. On or about 25 October 2023 I recieved an email request from the Third Respondent for copies of CCTV footage that may have been held by my employer for a specific date of 7 June 2023. This very first communication from the Third Respondent did not indicate why this material was required.
6. The Third Respondent emailed again on or about 22 November 2023 again requesting copies of CCTV footage from the centre from 7 June 2023 from approximately "midday to 2:00pm". Again at the time no explanation was given as to the reason for this request.
7. It is important to note that at the time the CCTV system used by my employer did not have the ability to download a 2 hour recording. After receipt of the email I attended the site and did a fast review of the recording on the system at the time and could not see anything of note (such as a slip and fall or accident).
8. As a result of this I then emailed the Third Respondent and said to the effect "that I could not see anything of note, what is it that you are looking for, I'm unable to download 2 hours of footage and we need permission to release footage".
9. The above was explained to the Complainant as part of their request for information on or about 26 March 2024 and I provided to her copies of the relevant emails and text messages between myself and the Third Respondent - see attached email chain named 2024.03.26 Email to Debra Iserman Responding to Form 29.pdf
10. I then obtained approval from my employer and forwarded to the Third Respondent a form for signing to release CCTV footage. This was signed and returned by the Third Respondent on 21 December 2023.
11. At some point (I do not recall exactly when) I prepared 4 small recordings using my phone. One at the beginning of the meeting, two of the middle of the recording and one at the end of the meeting. This was a random selection by me as I could not see anything else of note.
12. Following receipt of the signed release form I provided copies of the 4 clips to the Third Respondent. This is the last that I heard of the matter until contact was made on or about 7 March 2024 by the Complainant requesting the similar recording as requested by the Third Respondent.
13. On 8 March 2024 I informed the complainant;

13.1 Due to storage limitations the footage on the hard drive is overwritten with new footage.

13.2 That as a result of a request made by the Third Respondent previously we had 4 recorded clips that we had provided to the third Respondent.

13.3 We had no other recordings that we could provide.

13.4 I advised her that upon signing and returning the CCTV release form we could provide her with these 4 clips.

1. The Complainant signed and returned the form on 8 March 2024 and I provided the four clips to her via WhatsApp on the same day for which she acknowledged receipt - see attached screenshot.
2. The Complainant emailed again on 8 March 2024 requesting more footage. I again responded on the same day explaining there was no other footage in existence.
3. Subsequent to this there is ongoing communication from the Complaintant questioning the order of the clips and requesting additional footage.
4. It was made clear to the complainant that there was no other CCTV footage and that there was no methodology that was adopted by me or requested by other parties in preparing the clips.

18. I note that each clip provided has a date and time stamp on it which informs the viewer of the relevant order.

1. On or about 22 March 2024 I received a notice directed to myself which from my perspective seemed to request exactly what had already been provided by me to the Complainant. I attach a copy of the email response to the Complaintent dated 26 March 2024 which clearly shows I complied with the requirements of the Form 29 Notice of Non Party Disclosure.
2. The Complainant then forwarded through another request. I was advised by my employer not to respond further to the email because we had already provided everything that was relevant and in our possession.
3. On or about 16 August 2024 I received a copy of an Order from the Complainant. This Order seem to again request exactly what was previously requested under the Form 29 and which material as set out above had already been provided.
4. However as it has become clear that the Complainant is misleading the tribunal as to my compliance with the Form 29 I have decided to write this explanatory email to you setting out my compliance.
5. For the sake of clarity I attach all emails and correspondence relating to this matter that have already been passed between myself and Complainant and which demonstrate my compliance with the Form 29.

I wish to repeat that there is nothing further that can be provided either by myself of my employer."[3]

• [21] Ms Isermann sent an email on 27 August 2024 to the Registrar, Mr Catanzaro and the respondents in these terms:

"If you're wanting to explain- Why would you record 4 random clips of your own choice- because you didn't see anything of note? What of "note" were you looking for, apparently you gave footage to the respondents without a reason, at the time where's as I had to tell you why I wanted the footage before you would release it to me, but apparently Noel Hancock requested footage without a reason?

Apparently you had no method when deciding on 4 snippets of footage that you randomly chose?

However, that lead you to look for a slip and fall incident upon his request for?

Who gave you direction to take it upon yourself to record 4 random clips of choice and because you didn't see a slip/ fall or accident-there was nothing of note.

The footage wasn't requested due to a slip and fall incident?

Apparently you received no information about what the footage was required for or why it was needed, so you wouldn't have been looking for, what you say was" anything of note except a slip or fall?

When I requested the footage from you I had to tell you why I needed it and I also wasn't authorised to have the footage unless I actually appeared in that footage, so excuse me if I don't find that section of your explanation to be truthful, but let's go with me being deceptive for your pleasure.

Please do not accuse me of being deceptive, I'd requested an explanation from you, why footage was cut, and I was told (email) technical issues now it's shows in your statement to the QIRC that you chose 4 random spots to record on your phone- no technical issues, a choice you made because you could download two hours of the full transparent meeting.

You saw nothing of note because no one told you what they were looking for, nothing was disclosed from the respondent, so it was taken for granted by you that you were looking for a slip or fall- but when I requested the footage months after the respondent, you needed me to tell you why I wanted it and what it was for?

The many emails show and you have ignored me, I asked you why the the footage was out of context and cut into 4 snippets of 4.39 secs- that why I'm at QIRC because I have had resistance when trying to find the truth, so it was never technical issues it was you and your choice of 4 random clips you chose, to record on your phone-

There is an email between you and Noel Hancock, where you ask him what he is looking for, you haven't included his response to that email to me when I requested any information regarding the requests for footage by the other party.

There is also a txt message from Noel Hancock asking you to look at the end of the footage to see what that shows. I don't believe you included all emails/ txt messages between the both of you, and he certainly hasn't.

Again, I would suggest that you refrain from accusing me of being deceptive- your email proves to me that it is you that has been deceptive. If you couldn't supply the full truthful recording, you had no right to make the decision to take your mobile phone and decide to take 4 random clips totalling 4.39 secs out of a full meeting that was two hours long."[4]

• [22] On 28 August 2024, the Registrar responded:

"We refer to the below correspondence from Mr Catanzaro and Ms Isermann. The correspondence has been placed on file.

The Commission is of the view that this matter has finalised as Ms Isermann has accepted an offer to resolve the matter from the Respondents. If this is no longer the case, please urgently advise.

This email is sent on behalf of the Chambers of Industrial Commissioner McLennan."

• [23] On 30 August 2024, Ms Isermann sent a further email to the Registrar and the respondents' solicitors:

"Due to feeling very upset and attacked by the latest correspondence, and the admission by Daniel Catanzaro, the cctv footage delivered was random and only at certain points of the incident, was at his hands he decided what he would only supply-now knowing at the time it was requested by the Respondent he had the full footage- there was no technical reasons at fault. He knew the respondent was looking for the footage for a sexual assault sexual harassment case going to court. He deliberately cut the footage knowing it was needed for evidence- it is clearly seen on the respondents form, when he requested the footage so to hear that he had no idea why the respondent was wanting the footage is a deliberate lie.

I have felt sickened and bullied in the ruse to attack my character and push my mental well-being into a dark place.

Due to feeling physically and realising the boys club is still very much in existence in 2024, it has set me back, therefore missing the deadline to on the settlement."[5]

• [24] Various correspondence passed, including with the respondents' lawyers. On 3 September 2024, the Registrar sent an email to Ms Isermann recording that Ms Isermann had accepted the offer and inquiring as to when she would sign and return the deed. In reply, Ms Isermann sent this email:

"Obviously I've received the proof that the footage was indeed tampered with after I agreed to take the settlement.

4 mins 39 secs of footage- out of context was never meant to prove anything except that the footage had been tampered with, no technical issues at all, which I was told.

On the other hand the respondents relied on the tampered footage for a different reason.

Conveniently all that I had alleged and described in writing, on the human rights commission form is missing because, the footage has been tampered with and the now admission from the person who decided he would make the decision of what he would cut out of the full recording, and what he'd keep to arrive at 4 small snippets, not showing anything of note!

The footage was requested after the human rights conciliation so it was known by the respondent what he needed to have disappear from the footage and like magic it did.

Receiving aggressive emails from the respondents lawyer is inappropriate and her saying, what I say has no merit, is upsetting, and plain ridiculous as a lawyer she knows the footage is not whole, and because it's been tampered with by the shopping centre management (Daniel).

One would opine, directed by the respondent who clearly had conversations and then filled in the form saying he wanted it due to a sexual harassment claim, is no accident that only 4 min 39 sec is returned.

Daniel, then looking for what, in his opinion would be anything of note?

Who is this person who involved himself in a legal hearing and decided to tamper with the footage, he shouldn't have been looking for what the respondent requested, knowing it was going to be used in front of the QIRC- what should have happened is, he would be bound supply the full recording, (he had the full recording at that time), not a new version of a recording wanted by the respondent, via what's app, don't think that how it works.

Tampered footage is not evidence. I have no idea what else he's done to the footage, and how he's achieved the snippets he's supplied.

Iconically, Im the one being accused of being a deceptive person, by all parties and just looking to money grab as the respondent lawyers stated at the conciliation. The respondent chose to engage a lawyer, his costs are his problem not mine, so again I don't need the lawyer throwing her aggression at me in her email to me. That in balance of power is evident.

She is nothing to me but the respondent lawyer and quite frankly, that's enough said.

Is there another direction for me in the light of the new information, or are you telling me, I must sign the agreement."[6] (emphasis added)

• [25] As is apparent from the correspondence, the respondents' solicitors had, by this stage, prepared a deed and submitted it. Ms Isermann refused to sign the deed. She said that it contained terms with which she did not agree. In argument before me, she referred to a provision which records that she had sought and obtained legal advice. Ms Isermann submits, correctly it seems, that is factually incorrect.
• [26] An application was then made to the Commission to strike out Ms Isermann's claim for relief on the basis that it had been compromised. Ms Isermann resisted that application, but the Commission found for the respondents.[7] This is an appeal from that decision.

• [27] Mr and Mrs Hancock filed a written submission which contained a number of allegations made in rather inflammatory language. The only thing of substance was a submission made based on Masters v Cameron,[8] to the effect that a compromise to settle Ms Isermann's claim occurred at the conciliation conference, and that the proposed deed was simply intended to record the contract that had been made.
• [28] Ms Isermann responded with a submission. It is appropriate to set out Ms Isermann's written submissions in full:

"1. I don't believe the case against the respondent's should be struck off, I request it to be continued, in light of the new evidence received.

2. I did agree to take a token amount of $500 offered at the last conciliation process, the reason I decided to take the offer was because I was so tired of sitting opposite the respondent's and their lawyers, having my character attacked, being accused of the matter being a "money grab" words to the effect, I have a "pre occupation with my appearance", I'm "lying" etc, and not being able to say anything back to these people in those moments, was nothing more than a case of the victim being attacked by his attacker and his crew. An imbalance of power with verbal diatribe.

3. I watched (R2) Karen Hancock sit alongside her (R3) husband each time, not able to look me in the eye, but smirk with her husband as each lawyer, that changed from conciliation to conciliation continued to say, none of it happened because it's not seen within the footage, being supplied by them.

4. Noel Hancock had beaten me to the footage, because I never knew footage was in existence until the first conciliation conference. Also, knowing that the person who cut up the footage, was totally bias in favour of the respondent's, had already deleted the full footage after meticulously cutting in to it, it hit me pretty hard.

5. I had always alleged foul play when it came to the footage, but didn't have any proof at that stage, because the original footage was gone, of course. The respondent- Noel Hancock had managed to produce a distorted version of that day, thinking her had his smoking gun.

6. I wasn't giving up on trying to prove my case, I realised every case submitted to QIRC doesn't have to come with footage to prove what you are alleging happened to you, but knowing the manipulated version was of no help to me.

7. I was feeling deterred, annoyed that others were obviously happy to assist the respondent's to manipulate the situation, having no regard that I was alleging sexual harassment by respondent(1) which is not ok, (women should not have to be ok, about a man's unwanted advances or their touch, whilst going to sign an employment contract. A wife who sat by his side enabling his behaviour, turning a blind eye to what is apparent. The footage was cut up for his benefit, (at the very least you'd think she'd wonder why it's cut up in snippets and she couldn't see the full footage) she sat alongside this person, having no voice while he controlled the narrative. She sat in silence as he yelled at me in QHRC with his threats.

8. I felt pity for her, that she is willing or maybe intimidated by him herself, to go along with his story, even though she can see with her own eyes the footage is tampered with-and that's no coincidence. It was obvious to me all the people involved were closing ranks, not willing to supply information and ignoring the orders of the court to comply with the supply of that information. A cover up was in play.

9. I continually felt sickened in his presence and hearing his voice was disturbing to me, his arrogance is to be expected, after what he did to me, but hard to stomach.

10. I was feeling down trodden fighting an unfair battle against this married couple. A security company gone silent and even as I submit this submission, I'm now being threatened by that security company (SecTech). The other person, Daniel Catanzaro, controlling the footage at the Mt Cotton shopping centre, only too happy to destroy evidence.

11. The man made scenario felt unbelievable. I was feeling overwhelmed and experiencing the "boys club" still very much in existence in 2024. A wife who sits by, enabling her husband's behaviour, as if this is just happening to her husband because?.

12. It made me nauseous all the deception at play was effecting my mental state of mind. I accepted the offer, hoping I'd never have to see either of the respondent's again, hear his voice again, and a battle to fight my case against other men, unwilling to be transparent, so I accepted the offer. However before I had signed the agreement, I received a copy of a email sent to QIRC. The email was from Daniel Catanzaro.

13. The email sent was to obviously bash my character, to inform the commission that I was deceptive and misleading the tribunal, quite a bold email from a person who actually interfered with evidence, chopped footage up for the respondent to submit to QIRC. This email is why I decided against accepting the offer I had already said m, I'd accept.

14. The email from Daniel Catanzaro forwarded to QIRC 27/08/24 contradicts his original version sent in an email to me 26/03/2024, explaining why the footage had come to be. He had always claimed technical issues. SecTech- Jake Meredith wouldn't come forward with information about the footage or the technical issues, the form 29 ignored, and the respondent's attempt to muddy the water by submitting a document list to all-parties on 27/06/24, now naming SecTech as the makers of the footage, they have always been aware it was Daniel Catanzaro, employee of Powercat management, at the Mt cotton shopping centre who is the maker and supplier of the footage to Noel Hancock(3).

15. Whilst trying to attack my character and bring my so called deception, in trying to mislead the QIRC,(his words) Daniel Catanzaro gave a different version of how the footage came to be. Version no. 2 the correct version.

16. He now had, a different version of the reason behind the tampered footage, ( p,11) contradicting a previous version of blaming technical issues. He was admitting in this email, he took his mobile phone and decided to take grabs of the footage, stating he saw nothing of note. He randomly selected footage for no apparent reason (not even 4.39 secs of continuous footage but cut up snippets with footage missing), for Noel Hancock(3).

17. I have absolutely no interest in what Daniel Catanzaro thinks or his idea of what is "nothing of note" to him, and neither should the QIRC.

18. Daniel said, he needed to get permission from their legal department to supply the footage to Noel Hancock. In the application for release of cctv footage dated 20/12/2023 sent to Powercat legal advisor, (Michael Catanzaro a family member to Daniel Catanzaro) it's clearly seen-R1 had stated, "Evidence in a sexual Harassment case". The legal advisor, Michael Catanzaro (appearing on the PowerCat website). As a solicitor involved in a giving the legal go ahead, to supply a request for footage to be used in a court, would have to know, tampering with footage is a criminal offence. The original footage should be kept on file. The laws for supplying footage going before a court, is it can't be tampered with, it would be inadmissible unless in its entirety. Tampering with footage changes the reality.

19. It's now been established, at least in Nov-on 22&24, these parties had discussions about my allegation, going before the QIRC, knowing the legal process was in progress. When the discussion began footage was available in its entirety and should have been supplied in full, not sent through the what's up app, most people are aware you can't send lengthy recordings via a message app. I believe this was a part of the ruse that was going on, cutting the footage up so it didn't show anything of note, not because there was nothing of note.

20. Daniel Catanzaro and his family are in property management, just like the respondents(1-3) they could be associates, but Daniel Catanzaro isn't an investigator, and is not an adjudicator in a sexual Harassment claim, his opinion isn't valid. His tampering wasn't legal. I was treated like an insignificant woman and fed a lot a rubbish, I had to sift through. He was trying to sink my character, to justify himself possibly after being made aware I'd agreed to an offer, but unfortunately for respondent's(1-3) he had moved a little too fast with his attack on me at QIRC. If it had not been for his new version, new evidence in his attack, I would have discontinued and taken the token offer.

21. The email from Daniel Catanzaro has back fired, on him and the respondent-Noel Hancock. Daniel Catanzaro forgot that he had to have a good memory, if he was going to continue to stand by the respondent and continue to help manipulate the result, so with that I changed my mind on taking the offer.

22. I did not sign the agreement emailed to me, I notified the respondent's and the QIRC on 3/09/24 that I'd changed my mind due to new evidence and not agreeing to the terms in deed of release. No money had been exchanged by this time.

23. On the 12/09/24- 9 days later respondent(3) Noel Hancock knowing full well, the decision to take the offer had changed, still deposited the $500 into my bank account.

24. I believe this matter needs to be continued and the cover up exposed, this has not been easy, it is not fun but I can't continue to be intimidated, discriminated against or threatened, even if I stand alone with only my word.

25. The respondent- Noel Hancock, dumping the money into my account after learning the above, was another tactical manoeuvre. I believe the tampered footage was a tactic to intimidate me, to have me walking away from the matter, after both conciliation conferences- because the footage was always in place as a tool to threaten me with costs if I proceeded (much like the new threat from SecTech I'd received today) Both lawyers saying, my allegations had no chance of success.

26. I believe The respondent- Noel Hancock with the help of others set out to scare me away, to make me feel like no one would believe me, because he had the "nothing of note" footage. The true version is what the missing footage isn't showing-the way I'm being treated, creating a lot of threats, coming at me."[9] (emphasis added)

• [29] The Commissioner referred to the emails of 19 August 2024 from Ms Isermann to the Registrar, the email of 21 August 2024 from the Registrar to Ms Isermann, the email from Mr Catanzaro of 27 August 2024, the email by the Registrar to the parties on 28 August 2024, Ms Isermann's email to the Registry of 30 August 2024, and the emails between the Registrar and Ms Isermann of 3 September 2024.[10]
• [30] After referring to some procedural matters, the Commissioner then directed herself to the classic statement of the law made in Masters v Cameron:[11]

"Where parties who have been in negotiation reach agreement upon terms of a contractual nature and also agree that the matter of their negotiation shall be dealt with by a formal contract, the case may belong to any of three cases. It may be one in which the parties have reached finality in arranging all the terms of their bargain and intend to be immediately bound to the performance of those terms, but at the same time propose to have the terms restated in a form which will be fuller or more precise but not different in effect. Or, secondly, it may be a case in which the parties have completely agreed upon all the terms of their bargain and intend no departure from or addition to that which their agreed terms express or imply, but nevertheless have made performance of one or more of the terms conditional upon the execution of a formal document. Or, thirdly, the case may be one in which the intention of the parties is not to make a concluded bargain at all, unless and until they execute a formal contract.

In each of the first two cases there is a binding contract in the first case a contract binding the parties at once to perform the agreed terms whether the contemplated formal document comes into existence or not, and to join (if they have so agreed) in settling and executing the formal document; and in the second case a contract binding the parties to join in bringing the formal contract into existence and then to carry it into execution. Of these two cases the first is the more common. Throughout the decisions on this branch of the law the proposition is insisted upon which Lord Blackburn expressed in Rossiter v Miller [(1878) 3 App Cas 1124 when he said that the mere fact that the parties have expressly stipulated that there shall afterwards be a formal agreement prepared, embodying the terms, which shall be signed by the parties does not, by itself, show that they continue merely in negotiation."

• [31] The Commissioner referred to the emphatic language of Ms Isermann's email of 19 August 2024, namely, "I agree to the offer made by the respondents at conciliation, to finalise the matter".[12] The Commissioner also referred to the written submissions made by Ms Isermann, where she admitted that she did make the agreement.[13]
• [32] As to the submission by Ms Isermann that the deed did not reflect the bargain, the Commissioner directed herself to the statement of principle in Zoiti-Licastro v Australian Taxation Office,[14] where it was observed that the relevant consideration is not whether the deed properly reflected the agreement, but whether a valid agreement was originally struck.[15]
• [33] Having found that there was a binding agreement to compromise Ms Isermann's claim, the Commissioner relied upon Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman[16] to conclude that "the cause of action has been extinguished". The Commissioner then allowed the respondents' application to dismiss Ms Isermann's claim.

• [34] Ms Isermann's appeal is pursuant to s 557 of the Industrial Relations Act, which provides, relevantly:

(1) The Minister or another person aggrieved by a decision of the commission may appeal against the decision to the court on the ground of -

(a) error of law; or

(b) excess, or want, of jurisdiction.

(2) Also, the Minister or another person aggrieved by a decision of the commission may appeal against the decision to the court, with the court's leave, on a ground other than -

(a) error of law; or

(b) excess, or want, of jurisdiction.

• [35] Section 565 provides:

If an application for leave to appeal is made under section 554, 557 or 560, the Court of Appeal, court or full bench -

(a) must give leave if it is satisfied it is in the public interest to do so; and

(b) may not give leave other than under paragraph (a)."

• [36] Nothing in Ms Isermann's written submissions before the Commission seriously raised duress or undue influence. The only issue before the Commissioner was whether or not Ms Isermann's claim had been lawfully compromised by the acceptance of the offer made by the respondents at the conciliation conference.
• [37] Rule 139 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 required Ms Isermann's application to appeal to state "concise grounds of the appeal".[17] Ground 1 of Ms Isermann's appeal was in these terms:

"1. Unfair and prejudicial evidence allowed into a conciliatory process.

• QIRC fundamental rules of evidence-
• Relevance: evidence must be relevant to the issue in the issue to be admissible.
• Inadmissible evidence: evidence that is not relevant or reliable or is not legally obtained is considered inadmissible and cannot be presented in a court.
• Procedural Fairness: the right to procedural fairness ensures that all parties will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case."

• [38] What follows is a series of allegations as to the way in which the Commissioner conducted the conciliation conference. Most of these matters were not before the Commission on the hearing of the strike-out application. There was no application to adduce fresh evidence or to rely on fresh grounds on appeal.
• [39] Ground 2 is expressed in this way:

• [40] What follows is a number of complaints about the form and content of the deed.
• [41] Ground 2 can be ignored. The question is whether there was an agreement to compromise the claim. If there was, then the terms of the draft deed are of no significance.
• [42] Ground 1, as articulated in the application to appeal, is also all but irrelevant. However, on the hearing of the appeal the real question was litigated, namely, whether an agreement was reached as a result of the acceptance of the offer made at the conciliation conference, and so it is appropriate to review the Commissioner's judgment on that issue.
• [43] The application before the Commissioner was to summarily dismiss Ms Isermann's claim. Although the Commissioner did not specifically record that she had referred to the well-known principle that summary dismissal is only ordered in the clearest of circumstances,[18] the Commissioner made a positive finding that Ms Isermann had compromised her claim by accepting the offer made.
• [44] In King Tide Company Pty Ltd v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd,[19] Bond J (as his Honour then was) neatly summarised the contractual principles relevant to this appeal as follows:

"[12] The appellant's case below principally sought to prove that a contract had been formed by the application of a classical offer and acceptance analysis.

[13] The application of the classical theory of contract formation requires a consideration of the terms of an alleged offer and the terms of the alleged acceptance. If the acceptance corresponds with the offer, then so long as the other requisite elements exist (namely intention to be legally bound, consideration and certainty[20]), then a legally binding contract will, generally speaking, have been formed.

[14] A complication which sometimes arises is that the offer and acceptance analysis reveals that the parties contemplated a subsequent formal document, hence the Masters v Cameron[21] classes of case. In such cases, the decisive consideration is an objective assessment of whether, as at the time in question, the parties intended to bind themselves to the terms of a particular contract, in advance of the creation of the formal document.[22]

[15] It remains to note that it is not controversial that conduct occurring after the date a contract was allegedly formed by acceptance of an offer is admissible on the question of whether a contract has been formed as alleged."[23]

• [45] Here, the question is whether, objectively assessed, the parties intended to be bound to the terms of the settlement upon acceptance of the offer, or whether there was merely an agreement to agree, provided the terms of the deed could be agreed upon. Whether the parties fell within the first or second of the three possibilities identified in Masters v Cameron is not significant.
• [46] As observed by Bond J, the actions of a party after apparently entering into an agreement are relevant to the extent they reflect on, and thereby are probative of, proof of the intention of the party at the time of contracting, objectively ascertained.
• [47] Here, the evidence in favour of the conclusion reached by the Commissioner is overwhelming.
• [48] The respondents made an "offer" which was available for acceptance. In the conciliation conference, the Commissioner made clear to both parties that Ms Isermann had until 4 pm on the following Monday "to consider whether she will or won't accept the offer to resolve the matter by agreement". The Commissioner explained that if the offer was accepted, then a deed of agreement would be prepared. The Commissioner made it clear that if Ms Isermann declined to accept the offer, then the notice of non-party disclosure issues needed to be dealt with.
• [49] Everything said by the Commissioner in the presence of the parties when they reconvened indicated that the matter would be finalised by Ms Isermann's acceptance of the "offer" which had been made.
• [50] The response by Ms Isermann to the offer was both emphatic and unambiguous. The email of 19 August 2024 is in the terms: "I agree to the offer made by the respondents at conciliation, to finalise the matter". In that email, Ms Isermann does not refer to a deed, but she says that she understands that an order will be drawn up by the QIRC and that the funds will be deposited into her account. The only order that she could have expected to be drawn up by the QIRC was one dismissing her claim. The funds to be deposited, as referred to in her email, was the monies the subject of the offer that she had accepted. In the email of 19 August 2024, not only is Ms Isermann accepting that the matter has been settled by her offer, but she is seeking to have the respondents perform their part of the bargain that she has made and she is seeking to have the Registrar put the agreement into effect by a formal order.
• [51] There was no rebuke by Ms Isermann of the contents of the Registrar's email of 21 August 2024, which was consistent with the matter having been settled.
• [52] On 28 August 2024, the Registrar, in her email, asserted that the matter had settled. In Ms Isermann's response of 30 August 2024, she did not assert to the contrary.
• [53] Ms Isermann, in her email of 3 September 2024, did not assert that the matter had not been concluded by agreement upon the acceptance of the respondents' offer, but, rather, complained about what she saw as the CCTV footage having been tampered with.
• [54] When the respondents brought their application to strike out her claim, Ms Isermann, as already observed, filed a written submission.[24] There, she did not cavil with the notion that the claim had been settled, but, by paragraph [1] of her submission, thought it should "be continued, in light of the new evidence received". She followed that assertion by accepting that she "did agree to take a token amount of $500 offered at the last conciliation process" in paragraph [2]. After admitting that agreement, she then explained why she decided to take it. In paragraph [12] she said, "I accepted the offer". In paragraph [13] she explained that she "decided against accepting the offer I had already said... I'd accept". She said in paragraph [22] that she had "changed my mind due to new evidence". A similar comment was made in paragraph [21].

• [55] At the conciliation conference the parties understood that Ms Isermann could accept the offer made at the conference, provided she did so within four days. The intention of the parties, objectively ascertained from the evidence to which I have referred, was that acceptance by Ms Isermann would conclude the claim, but the terms of the agreement would be later documented. Ms Isermann accepted the offer and her claim was compromised. Her claim ceased to have any prospect of success once she accepted the offer. From that point, her rights merged into the settlement.
• [56] The Commissioner was right to dismiss Ms Isermann's claim summarily, and it is appropriate to order that the appeal be dismissed.
• [57] It is ordered:
  1. Appeal dismissed.

[1] Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QIRC 63.

[3] This extract has been faithfully reproduced notwithstanding the appearance of obvious errors.

[4] This extract has been faithfully reproduced notwithstanding the appearance of obvious errors.

[5] This extract has been faithfully reproduced notwithstanding the appearance of obvious errors.

[6] This extract has been faithfully reproduced notwithstanding the appearance of obvious errors.

[7] Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QIRC 64.

[8] [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353.

[9] This extract has been faithfully reproduced notwithstanding the appearance of obvious errors.

[10] Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QIRC 64 at [8]- [15].

[11] [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353; quoted in Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QIRC 64 at [21].

[14] (2006) 154 IR 1.

[15] Isermann v Professional Property Inspections Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QIRC 64 at [28].

[16] [2011] FCA 975.

[17] Rule 139(2)(c).

[18] Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91; General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129-130.

[19] [2017] QCA 251.

1. [20] N Seddon, R Bigwood and M Ellinghaus, Cheshire & Fifoot's Law of Contract (2012, 10th Australian edition, LexisNexis Butterworths) at [1.16].

[21] [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353.

1. [22] Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 313 per Bathurst CJ at [15], per Beazley P (with whom Meagher JA agreed) at [64]-[65]; Feldman v GNM Australia Ltd [2017] NSWCA 107 per Beazley P (with whom McColl and Macfarlan JJA agreed) at [68].
2. [23] Feldman v GNM Australia Ltd [2017] NSWCA 107 per Beazley P (with whom McColl and Macfarlan JJA agreed) at [90]-[91].

[24] Reproduced at paragraph [28] of these reasons.