//
[2025] QIRC 86
General information, not legal advice.
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
2025-03-24
Original judgment source is linked above.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION - DISCRIMINATION AND VICTIMISATION IN THE WORKPLACE - application in existing proceedings - application for disclosure - where the second respondent seeks orders that the complainant disclose documents falling within seven categories - where the application is opposed - duty, and principles, of disclosure - whether disclosure should be ordered in the circumstances
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 7, 10, 119, 204
Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1952) 72 WN 250
CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2011] FCA 1396; (2011) 212 IR 313
Commonwealth v Evans (2004) 81 ALD 408
DP World Brisbane Pty Ltd v Rogers & Anor [2014] ICQ 010
Golding v Sippel and the Laundry Chute Pty Ltd [2021] QIRC 074
Golding v Sippel and The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd [2021] ICQ 14
Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15; (1991) 172 CLR 60
Huyghe v State of Queensland (Mackay Hospital and Health Service) [2022] QIRC 014
Kelsey v Logan City Council & Ors (No 6) [2018] QIRC 115
Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurant & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276
Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 025
Peng v Bak10Cut Pty Ltd AND Anor [2020] QIRC 115
State of Queensland (Department of Health) v WorkCover Queensland [2020] QIRC 113
Watton v TAFE Queensland (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 299
Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General)
(No. 4) [2016] QIRC 075
Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors; Santos Ltd & Ors v Xstrata Qld Ltd [2005] QSC 323
[1] On 14 October 2024, Mr Svargo Klaus Freitag ('the Second Respondent') filed an
'Form 4 - Application in existing proceedings' ('the Application') in the Industrial Registry, seeking that Ms Teresa Gabriela Zarin Amavand ('the Complainant') be ordered to disclose the following documents:[1]
(a) copies of missing pages three to six of the Government-contracted Doctor Disability Medical Assessment (assessment date 22-02-2024);
(b) all and any medical records from 01-01-2000 until 05-10-2024 not yet disclosed and related in any way to Ms Amavand's psychological health issues;
(c) copies of Ms Amavand's report to Fair Work and all other communication to and form the Fair Work Commission relating to the alleged unwanted conduct in the workplace;
(d) copies of Ms Amavand's declarations to Centrelink of the income she received from Kanjini Co-Op Ltd;
(e) Ms Amavand's employment history for the last ten years, including payments received;
(f) a complete record of emails and text messages between Ms Amavand and her sister between 14-05-2022 and 21-07-2022; and
(g) a complete record of Ms Amavand's outgoing phone calls to the Second Respondent between 10-05-2022 and 31-07-2022.
(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.
r 41(2)(o) of the Rules.
(a) whether a document is directly relevant to an issue in the proceeding is a question of fact in the circumstances of the case;
(b) 'directly' should not be understood to mean that which constitutes direct evidence, to the exclusion of circumstantial evidence. Rather, 'directly relevant' means something which tends to prove or disprove the allegation in issue; and
(c) a document will not be 'directly relevant' if, rather than tending to prove an issue in dispute, it merely tends to prove something that may be relevant to a disputed issue.
To be relevant, a document does not have to in itself prove the case of the party seeking production of it. It is sufficient if the document tends to prove or disprove an allegation in issue in the proceedings.
[9] By operation of r 46 of the Tribunals Rules, the obligation in respect of disclosure applies to documents relevant to an allegation in issue in the proceedings. Where disclosure has been made by a party, another party seeking further disclosure must establish that there are documents in the possession or power of the other party which are relevant to an issue in dispute which have not been disclosed by that other party.
[11] The purpose of the Statement of Facts and Contentions is to allow each party to properly set out and particularise the relevant facts and legal contentions raised in order to place the Commission and other party on notice as to what the parties' respective case will be. Whilst not formally recognised as such, the Statement of Facts and Contentions have a function akin to pleadings.
[12] Accordingly, when determining whether a document, or category of documents is directly relevant, I will do so by considering whether the document or category of documents is directly relevant to an allegation in issue as identified in the [Appellant's] SOFC and [Respondent's] SOFC. The "directly relevant" test set out in r 46 of the Tribunals Rules is intended to impose a threshold on the process of discovery.
Complainant's Statement of Facts and Contentions
9 February 2024 requiring the Complainant to file a Statement of Facts and Contentions by 22 March 2024. The Complainant accordingly filed her original Statement of Facts and Contentions in the Industrial Registry on 19 March 2024 ('the first SOFC'). However, the Respondents were not served a copy of this document until the Complainant resent her Statement of Facts and Contentions to the Respondents and the Registry on 27 March 2024. This 27 March 2024 copy was refiled in the Industrial Registry as a result of this correspondence, but it is identical to the first SOFC.
19 June 2024 granting the Complainant leave to file an amended SOFC by 25 June 2024. On 25 June 2024, the Complainant filed another Statement of Facts and Contentions in the Registry ('the third SOFC'). This was followed by the filing of another 'Amended Decision Sought' document on 27 June 2024, which in short outlined that the Complainant sought (financial) compensation amounting to $1,416,000.
(a) in relation to sexual harassment:
- whether or not sexual harassment occurred;
(b) in relation to direct discrimination:
- whether the Complainant has a certain attribute, or has certain attributes, outlined in s 7 of the AD Act;
- whether the Complainant was treated, or proposed to be treated, less favourably than another person (either a real or hypothetical comparator) without the identified attribute/s, in circumstances that are the same or not materially different; and
- if it is decided that a 'less favourable' treatment occurred, whether a substantial reason for that treatment was discriminatory.
(a) Complainant's response to the interlocutory application, filed on 17 October 2024;
(b) Respondent's submissions, filed on 6 November 2024; and
(c) Complainant's further submissions, filed on 11 November 2024.
Missing pages of Doctor Disability Medical Assessment
... I nominated to send 2 pages of 6 of Centrelink Contracted Doctor Disability Medical Assessment 2024, a Med Cert 2021 that specifies my conditions as perceived by my doctor at six months before I was working for Kanjini and Svargo Freitag and I sent other results of my condition prior to 2022 including a spine scan result and blood test results.
According to my doctor and psychologist I need not have sent all that and should have waited to be advised by legal aid as to what had to be sent. I am also concerned I do not have right to waive legal claim to privilege of that document as it belongs to Centrelink. I told the Respondents this by email.
My lawyer and barrister were pressing me to send the whole 6 pages (which I sent to them to check) and I stated that I feel 'extremely distressed' that my abusers would have this personal information and possibly do further harm to me with it. My lawyer emailed me that they admitted that he had not read it and did not know its contents but they continued to press me to send it because Svargo Freitag asked for it. I declined their instructions to send the whole 6 pages and was therefore cancelled from my Legal Aid grant.
I will send the 6 pages only if the Commissioner Gazenbeek reads Centrelink Contracted Doctor Disability Medical Assessment 2024 and tells me it is safe to send and that I am legally, lawfully and ethically required to send it to the Respondents ... I have read the Privacy Act. It states that only court authorised people and experts can request that kind of medical information.
My list of documents submitted to the parties ... states 'Relevant Medical Records' and does not specify any titles of documents and does not specify the entire 6 pages of the specific document Centrelink Contracted Doctor Disability Medical Assessment 2024. I do not believe I must send it if demanded by the Respondents due to their lack of proper authority and my reasonable expectation that they will show lack duty of care and respect for my privacy and human rights in handling it.
I also provided a report of my condition post the workplace abuse at Kanjini Co-Operative Ltd in 2022 from my counsellor and Med Cert 2023 from my current doctor. I understand that what I have provided is enough for them to base their case that the sexual harassment and sexual discrimination from Svargo Freitag at the workplace where I worked ... did not cause my current state of debilitating PTSD because I already had PTSD. Mert Cert says I could work 12 hours at the time I worked for Kanjini Co-operative Ltd.
The Complainant claims in p51 C5SOFC: "as a result of the 18 July Incidents, the Complainant ... was diagnosed with PTSD ineligible to work part-time".
Matters at issue in this proceeding to be proved or disproved are whether the Complainant was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of the 18 July incidents, or for other reasons, and/or was diagnosed with other psychological or psychiatric conditions, and whether and to what extend [sic] such conditions were historic or were caused by Freitag's alleged conduct.
Partial information provided in the DMAR introduces inconsistencies from the Job Capacity Assessment Report (JCAR), underscoring the need for discovery of the missing pages to confirm or dispel the claims made in this proceeding.
Page 2 of DMAR notes that it differs from a not yet disclosed Job Capacity Assessment Report (JCAR) "Reason: Difference with the JCAR: The JCAR: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The DMAR: Psycho/psychiatric disorder other. This decision was based on medical evidence, as noted."
Pages 3-6 of DMAR are arguably detailing the medical evidence such differentiation is based on and thus will be able to prove or disprove some or all of the issues above and therefore are directly relevant to the proceedings.
Without these pages, the basis for and the full extent of the contributing factors to the DMAR diagnosis remains unclear, making a precise determination of causation elusive.
Further, the Respondents allege that the Complainant made up and embellished events.
The full DMAR report will arguably reveal historical mental health issues relevant to the credibility of the Complainant's claims, including factors that can explain her embellishment and falsification of events.
The Centrelink contracted psychologists and the Workcover claim assessment team, having full access to all my medical history and employment history, made their professional determinations which resulted in my being transferred from: eligible for Jobseeker payment with well-managed conditions of PTSD so that my medically certified capacity for part-time work was being fulfilled often and when possible, to having exacerbated symptoms after the abuse at Kanjini Co-operative's workplaces, being unable to complete the requirements of part-time work capacity, being transferred to Disability Support Payment in March 2024 and having doctor and psychologist appointments, (to help manage symptoms and mitigate and avoid further exacerbation of symptoms throughout this process), covered by Workcover.
Regarding the Respondent's claim that they can make determinations based on their own interpretation of the document Government-contracted doctor Disability Medical Assessment Report
The Respondents are not qualified to scrutinise somebody's medical records of 24 years and make unbiased, viable determinations about whether they are being 'truthful' or not.
(d) she has "suffered compensable non-financial damage" in part "incurred through causing and exacerbating her medical conditions";[19] and
(e) as a result of the Second Respondent's conduct, she is "unable to maintain fulfilling work of her choice and was diagnosed with PTSD" and that she, following assessments "by the Government contracted doctor's disability medical assessment team, began receiving disability support payment [sic] in April 2024."[20]
[18] The mere claim that a document to be produced is confidential is not a valid objection to its production. Much of what is disclosed to another party in court or tribunal proceedings of one kind or another may well be confidential. It has been held that where this is the case, "the risk to the confidentiality of the information must be tolerated in the interest of the administration of justice". Where specific issues of privacy or a heightened concern for commercial confidentiality, for example, arise, arrangements may be made to ensure that the disclosure of material and information that is made does not go beyond what is strictly necessary in the circumstances. What has been said with regard to confidential information might equally be said to apply in the case of personal information that might in other circumstances be protected by privacy legislation. Accordingly, the mere fact that information to be produced might include "private" information, however defined, is an insufficient ground in law to justify the setting aside of a Notice or to issue a Notice.
[19] Reference was made in the submissions before the Commission and in this Court to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The provisions of that Act do not restrict the powers of the Commission in this case. If that Act is relevant, Principle 11, contained in
s 14, expressly exempts "disclosure ... required or authorised by or under law" from the limits on disclosure of personal information.
[20] The second concern identified in the Commission's reasons was as to the use to which information incidentally disclosed as a result of the relevant Notice might be put. This concern is similar to that which centres upon notions of privacy or confidentiality**. It is well established that parties to whom documents are discovered may not use the discovered documents or the information that they contain for a purpose other than the conduct of the proceedings in question. To do so would amount to conduct in contempt of the relevant court or tribunal,** and this principle has been held to extend to material produced on subpoena. Accordingly, this concern does not justify the exercise of the Commission's discretion.
[41] The parties are not legally represented in this matter and as such it is appropriate to make clear the undertaking that applies in these circumstances. The Harman undertaking is an implied undertaking that documents obtained as a result of a compulsory process such as this will only be used for the purposes for which they were disclosed and will not be used for a collateral or ulterior purpose.
Medical records from 01-01-2000 until 05-10-2024
... It is irrelevant. Further damage/injury can be done to me with my entire medical history in the hands of my abusers who have no authority as experts or sense of duty of care or respect for my human rights and I have reason to fear that they will abuse it. I call on the Privacy Act. Unless specifically authorised by QIRC I do not have to give my entire details medical records of the last 24 years to the abusers. I will provide it to the Commission if asked.
a) At para 51 C5SOFC the Complainant claims "the non-financial damage otherwise labelled as general damages, has been incurred through causing and exacerbating her medical conditions, offence, hurt, humiliation, and intimidation within the meaning of section 209(1)(b) of the Act".
b) At para 30 C5SOFC the Complainant states she is "unable to maintain fulfilling work of her choice and was diagnosed with PTSD ineligible to work part-time and after assessments by the Government contracted doctor's disability medical assessment team, began receiving disability support payment in April 2024".
c) The Respondents maintain that any PTSD or other medical conditions were preexisting and/or not caused by Freitag's conduct and that her preexisting mental health conditions directly relate to the Complainant's credibility, and falsifications and inconsistencies of her accounts of alleged events.
d) Matters at issue to be proved or disproved in this proceeding are:
(i) whether or not Freitag's alleged misconduct, if in fact it occurred, has caused and exacerbated the Complainant's psychiatric conditions;
(ii) whether psychological / psychiatric disorders or symptoms were more severe after 21-07-2022 than before 28-05-2022 and if they were more severe, whether or not there were any non-case-related factors, reasons or causes;
(iii) whether the Complainant's preexisting psychological / psychiatric conditions could have caused or contributed to the Complainant's major behavioural change after 18-07-2022 from admiration for Freitag to revenge;
(iv) whether the Complainant's preexisting psychological / psychiatric conditions have contributed to the Complainant making up events, embellishing innocent and consensual conduct, and repeatedly changing details, dates and quotes.
e) The Respondents argue that complete medical records are necessary to assess the accuracy and causation of these matters as true or untrue.
f) The assessments and reports ... and comparisons between them will arguably tend to prove or disprove the matters in issue ... and are thus considered directly relevant to these proceedings.
g) The Complainant's Medical history and mental health conditions are also directly related to the Complainant's claims for damages and to the Respondents' ability to respond to such claims.
h) Additionally the medical reports requested below will arguably detail historical mental health issues relevant to the credibility of the Complainant's claims, including factors that can explain her embellishments and falsifications of events.
j) The Respondents herewith request for the following reports and/or assessments, as identified on page 2 DMAR, by:
iii. Dr G Fotonchi, GP reported psychosomatic symptoms on 23-03-2016;
iv. clinical psychologist Ms. Donna Eshuys who prescribed psychotropic medication and confirmed 15 sessions during 2017 and 2018;
v. Dr S Cousins reported symptoms of mood instability on 29-09-2019;
vi. Dr P. Johnson reported chronic and severe symptoms, including anxiety, fearfulness and past trauma on 29-09-2021 and 01-05-2022;
vii. Noosaville 7 Day Medical Centre dated 30-11-2023.
k) The Respondents also request a copy of the JCAR dated 24-01-2024 referred to at the top of page 2 DMAR. This report is required to understand the distinctions between the JCAR's diagnosis of PTSD and the DMAR's other psychiatric diagnosis (see para 1.e) above).
m) The Respondents request any other mental health reports or assessments between 2010 and 2024.
... I don't own a record of this phone call to Fairwork. No written or email report exists. I already told [the Respondents] this in June 2024.
Freitag first verbally requested these [records] and other documents like her statement to police in the QIRC mention on 18-06-2024. When asked ... the Complainant stated that she had never contacted Fair Work.
In para 67 of her disclosed sworn police statement the Complainant stated: "I did that, went to fair work, told them my story and they were of the opinion that my story did fit with having been sexually assaulted."
Freitag is asking here for evidence to help decide the following matters:
(i) Did the Complainant contact Fair Work or not?
(ii) If yes, what did the Complainant tell Fair Work and what claim did she make?
(iii) Do those statements support or contradict her statements to this court?
(iv) Why did Fair Work not action the claim by the Complainant?
If in fact no such record can be made available by the Complainant, then the Respondents are willing to withdraw this part of the application.
No. Irrelevant. Declare only if you earn over $150 fortnight. I worked 9 weeks for $316.00 total from Kanjini Ltd. I do not have to supply the Respondents with a record of my declarations of income to Centrelink.
Svargo Freitag cited my commitment to the training and my speed of learning the system for telling me to create and submit an invoice for the retainer plus the commissions for the month 4 June to 5 July at $1286.44.
I did create that invoice and submitted it to Kanjini Co-operative by email a couple of days later. I have the email record as evidence.
I did not receive the payment for that invoice as I was berated and humiliated with hovering over me angrily and denying those instructions and forcing me to issue a new invoice for the retainer of $200 only, on the evening of the worst sexual assault and sexual harassments at the workplace [on] 18 July.
The Complainant claims that she is owed payment of an allegedly outstanding June invoice of $1,286.44 [52d & e C5SOFC & p21b C5SOFC].
Freitag claims that that invoice was created for training purposes only.
If the Complainant believes she is still owed $1,286.44 or any other amount for the month of June, that amount should have been declared to Centrelink.
The Complainant was engaged as a contractor from 28-06-2022 until 21-07-2022, or in the alternative from 20-06-2022 until 21-07-2022.
Her own disclosed document [Kanjini pays AccountActivity_17062024 (2).pdf] shows the Complainant has been paid $716.00 for that period.
A major matter of issue in this proceeding is whether the Complainant is truthful or not, including but not limited to Government Organisations and this Court.
A declaration of income to Centrelink, or in the alternative a sworn statement by the Complainant that no such declaration was made and why it was not made will decide the matters at issue ...above.
No. Only if the Commissioner and authorised experts can ask me to supply my employment history and payment history for the last ten years to the Respondents.
Pp 33, 40, 49 and 50 of C5SOFC claims: "economic loss" which in p50 is claimed to be "ongoing and cannot yet be accurately quantified."
P 50 of C5SOFC further claims: "is unable to maintain fulfilling work of her choice and was diagnosed with PTSD ineligible to work part-time and after assessments by the Government contracted doctor's disability medical assessment team, began receiving disability support payment in April 2024.
The matter at issue here is how any economic loss should be calculated, if the Complainant's claim for economic loss should be successful.
The Complainant's employment and income history will be able to do so.
No, I call on the Privacy Act. I don't have right to waive legal claim to privilege and cannot send entire text messages between my sister and I for the period I was working for Kanjini or the 3 months after that he asked for.
The Complainant lodged [a] claim ... with Workcover to receive workers compensation, based on the same alleged incidences as in AD/2023/143.
In [that claim] the Complainant supplied some text messages between her and her sister as relevant evidence, however they were all dated 18-07-2022 or later.
One major matter at issue in these proceedings is which version of events is true:
(i) The Complainant's allegations of ongoing discrimination and sexual harassment from the day she first met Freitag until the day they parted; or
(ii) Freitag's allegations that the Complainant praised and admired him and was romantically attracted to him until he clarified on 18-07-2022 that he was not interested, at which time she became vindictive and started to make up events or embellished innocent events in order to hurt him.
While all communications by the Complainant with any third party after Freitag's alleged clarification on 18-07-2022 can be explained by either version of events above, text and email communication between the Complainant and her sister between 14-05-2022 and 21-07-2022 will be able to prove one or the other version and thus are directly relevant to the main matter in issue in this proceeding.
I provided Workcover with two text messages with my sister which I believe were provided to Svargo Freitag, Suriya Freitag and the directors have access to. One message said I was in training at the time and could not answer her call, Monday 18 July 7pm, the night of the last assault and sexual harassments, and a consequent message a couple of days later said I had ... tried to keep the job but had to quit the job because I reckoned that even after I told him to stop that he wouldn't stop the violations.
A 'fishing expedition' in the sense in which the phrase has been used in the law, means, as I understand it, that a person who has no evidence that fish of a particular kind are in a pool desires to be at liberty to drag it for the purpose of finding out whether there are any there or not.
No. My phone call records go back only to 2023. For records of phone calls between myself and Svargo Freitag in 2022, check your own phone. Text messages go back to early 2022 and I have supplied the PDF Screenshots of text messages [between the Complainant and the Second Respondent] to the Respondents.
The Complainant claims to have called and first met Freitag on or about 14-05-2022 [pp6 & 9 C5SOFC], which is a matter at issue.
Freitag recalls the Complainant contacting him only in the last week of May and first meeting her during a cultural burn on or about Sunday 29-05-2022.
The requested phone records will prove or disprove the Complainant's pp 6 & 9C5SOFC and are thus directly relevant to the proceeding.
Additionally the Complainant has claimed that Freitag called her on occasions (05-07-2022 & 18-07-2022), of which Freitag has no record or recollection.
Phone records will establish whether the Complainant called Freitag instead.
The Complainant can simply request these records from her service provider.
Since Svargo Freitag would often organise the next training, walk, or volunteering work-bee at the previous meeting and tell me verbally to text him on a certain day of his choosing to remind him of the meeting so that he could have a record on his phone of an arranged time as reminder, I agreed.
I have some emails and text message records of Svargo Freitag initiating walks and training times at the workplace throughout that period of time.
If he had previously verbally told me a specific time and date to turn up for training or volunteering or a walk I would just turn up but mostly I would check for confirmation with a text.
Therefore, a record of phone calls is no proof of whether he instructed me to go there for training or not.
Consideration - renaming of the Complainant's fourth Statement of Facts and Contentions
[1] Form 4 - Application in existing proceedings, filed 14 October 2024, 3.
[3] Further Directions Order (No. 3), issued 25 October 2024.
[4] [2022] QIRC 014 [20], citing CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2011] FCA 1396; (2011) 212 IR 313 [34]-[37].
[5] Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors; Santos Ltd & Ors v Xstrata Queensland Ltd [2005] QSC 323, as cited in State of Queensland (Department of Health) v WorkCover Queensland [2020] QIRC 113 [23].
[6] [2023] ICQ 025 [42], citing Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurant & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276, 282-3 and Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors; Santos Ltd & Ors v Xstrata Queensland Ltd [2005] QSC 323 [45].
[7] [2021] QIRC 299 [9], [11]-[12].
[8] Transcript of 23.04.2024, 1-6 ll 15-23.
[9] Complainant's Fourth Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed 11 October 2024, [1], [34].
[12] I note at this juncture, for clarity, that I have frequently referred to the First and Second Respondents throughout my consideration as 'the Respondents'. This is both for simplicity because the Second Respondent does so in his own submissions, and because of the inevitable overlap given the Second Respondent is the founder and director of the First Respondent, as well as a shareholder and the manager of the First Respondent's workers/employees.
[13] Complainant's Fourth Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed 11 October 2024, [7].
[16] See Golding v Sippel and The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd [2021] QIRC 074 [50]-[52].
[17] See Wissmann v Nugent [2022] QIRC 058 [13].
[18] See Peng v Bak10Cut Pty Ltd AND Anor [2020] QIRC 115 [14]-[16].
[19] Complainant's Fourth Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed 11 October 2024, [49]-[51].
[21] Golding v Sippel and The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd [2021] QIRC 074 [222]-[223].
[22] [2014] ICQ 010 [18]-[20].
[23] [2016] QIRC 075 [4], cited with approval in Kelsey v Logan City Council & Ors (No 6) [2018] QIRC 115.
[24] Peng v Bak10Cut Pty Ltd AND Anor [2020] QIRC 115 [39].
[26] [2021] QIRC 074 [227], citing Commonwealth v Evans (2004) 81 ALD 408 [80], and Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15; (1991) 172 CLR 60, 63.
[27] See Golding v Sippel and The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd [2021] ICQ 14 [32]-[38].
[28] Golding v Sippel and The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd [2021] QIRC 074 [231].
[29] (1952) 72 WN 250, 254.
[30] Kelsey v Logan City Council & Ors (No. 6) [2018] QIRC 115 [44].
[31] Form 4 - Application in existing proceedings, filed 11 October 2024, 3.
Zarin Amavand
Kanjini Co-Op Ltd & Anor [2025] QIRC 86
(2011) 212 IR 313
(1991) 172 CLR 60