Pegg v Gumdale State School P&C Association & Anor [2025] ICQ 26

• [1] Ms Shaunesy Andrea Pegg was employed by the Gumdale State School P&C Association ('the Association') in the position of Business Operations Manager. At all times material to the present application to appeal before the Court, Mr Steven Madsen was the President of the Association. In December 2023, Ms Pegg resigned from her position with the Association and subsequently sought to rescind the resignation. The Association did not accept Ms Pegg's recission of her resignation.

• [2] On 2 January 2024, Ms Pegg filed an application to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission seeking various remedies pursuant to ch 8, pt 1 ('General protections') of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act'). The Association and Mr Madsen were the Respondents to that application filed by Ms Pegg ('Ms Pegg's general protections application').

• [3] By decision dated 13 December 2024, the Commission, pursuant to s 541(b)(ii) of the IR Act, dismissed Ms Pegg's application because further proceedings by the Commission were not necessary or desirable in the public interest ('the Primary Decision').[1]

• [4] By application to appeal filed on 29 July 2025, Ms Pegg appealed to this Court against the Primary Decision. However, Ms Pegg's application to appeal was started out of time. Ms Pegg has applied to the Court for it to exercise discretion to allow her to start her appeal within a longer period.

• [5] On 7 November 2025, the Respondents filed an application in existing proceedings seeking leave from the Court, pursuant to section 530(1)(a)(ii) of the IR Act, for them to be represented by a lawyer ('the Respondents' application').

• [6] Pursuant to a Directions Order of the Court dated 7 November 2025, Ms Pegg, on 12 November 2025, filed written submissions in respect of the Respondents' application. Ms Pegg opposes the Respondent being given leave to be represented by a lawyer.

• [7] These reasons concern my decision about the Respondents' application.

The relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 2016

• [8] The effect of s 530(1)(a) of the IR Act is that, relevantly, a party to proceedings, or a person ordered or permitted to appear or to be represented in the proceedings, may be represented by a lawyer only if, for proceedings before this Court, all parties consent or, the Court gives leave.

• [9] In respect of leave being given, s 530(4) of the IR Act provides:

(4) An industrial tribunal may give leave under subsection (1) only if-

(a) it would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter; or

(b) it would be unfair not to allow the party or person to be represented because the party or person is unable to represent the party's or person's interests in the proceedings; or

(c) it would be unfair not to allow the party or person to be represented having regard to fairness between the party or person, and other parties or persons in the proceedings.

• [10] The Respondents' contend that the Court should give them leave to be represented by a lawyer because:

• pursuant to s 530(4)(a) of the IR Act, such legal representation would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter; and

• the complexity in the matter arises because there are legal and factual questions concerning:

• - the circumstances giving rise to Ms Pegg's request for an extension of time and the basis for the request; and

• - the significant factual dispute between the parties regarding the events leading to Ms Pegg's resignation, the conduct of all parties involved and the broader public interest considerations relevant to the Court's determination of the application.

• they lack the legal expertise and resources to effectively represent themselves;

• the Association is a not-for-profit entity with a volunteer Board;

• any Board member required to represent the Respondents would need to take leave from employment and dedicate substantial personal time; and

• they face significant financial and reputational consequences arising from the outcome of the appeal which are disproportionate to those faced by Ms Pegg, such that legal representation is required to maintain fairness between the parties.

• the matter does not raise any complex questions of law or fact as the issues concern straightforward procedural and factual matters relevant to her claims of adverse actions;

• that the Respondents are seeking to protect their reputation, is not a relevant consideration under the IR Act;

• granting leave would unfairly prejudice her as it would prolong proceedings, increase stress and the procedural burden on her, and allow the Respondents to circumvent clear timeframes that exist to ensure fairness;

• legal representation would not be necessary to ensure a fair hearing as the Court has sufficient power to guide the parties;

• the Association is an experienced organisation and Mr Madsen is an experienced individual, and both are capable of responding to the matter without legal counsel; and

• the engagement of legal representatives, at this stage, appears intended to:

• - further create an imbalance between the parties;

• - increase the level of procedural complexity; and, or in the alternative

• - exert pressure or intimidation on her as a self-represented applicant.

• [13] Section 530(4)(a) of the IR Act requires the following assessment to be undertaken:

• identify the complexity of the 'matter', being the controversy the subject of the principal proceeding; and,

• identify how, having regard to the complexity, having a party represented by lawyers would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently.[2]

• [14] Presently, Ms Pegg does not have a valid application to appeal against the Primary Decision before the Court. Ms Pegg will not have such a valid application unless I exercise the Court's discretion in her favour to allow her to start her appeal within a longer period of time. If I exercise that discretion in Ms Pegg's favour, then she contends, by her one ground of appeal, that she was denied procedural fairness in respect of the Primary Decision. That ground alleges an error of law. Therefore, the principal question before the Court would be whether the decision appealed against is vitiated by an error of law. A similar issue arises in respect of Ms Pegg's application for a longer period of time to start her appeal in that a relevant issue, in that application, is an assessment of Ms Pegg's prospects of success on appeal.

• [15] Dealing with proceedings more efficiently involves effectively using resources and time. The Court would therefore be assisted by one of the parties being legally represented to assist in the efficient conduct of the proceeding by making submissions about whether the Primary Decision was vitiated by a denial of procedural fairness to Ms Pegg as she contends.

• [16] The professional assistance provided by a legal representative, in addressing the Court about that issue, would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently.

• [17] In coming to this view, I have taken into account the reasons given by Ms Pegg for her opposition to the Respondents being given leave to be represented by a lawyer.

• [18] In this regard, I am not persuaded that granting leave would unfairly prejudice Ms Pegg. The efficiency brought about by the Respondents being legally represented would not prolong proceedings or create any further procedural issues, nor would it allow any party to circumvent any timeframes.

• [19] Legal representatives before the Court are obliged to act in a professional manner. For these reasons, I do not consider that it would be unfair, as between the parties, to grant the Respondents leave to be represented by a lawyer.

Pursuant to s 530(1)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the Respondents are given leave to be represented by a lawyer for this proceeding.

[1] Pegg v Gumdale State School P&C Association & Anor [2024] QIRC 295 [58] (Industrial Commissioner Pratt).

[2] Sillay v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] ICQ 16, 34-35 (Davis J, President).