Amanda Jane Eales v Steven Pammenter, Ana Keckeisen, Samantha Clitheroe, Geoff Hawkins, Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 3430

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.596 - Representation by lawyers and paid agents Amanda Jane Eales v Steven Pammenter, Ana Keckeisen, Samantha Clitheroe, Geoff Hawkins, Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Ltd (AB2024/632) COMMISSIONER SLOAN SYDNEY, 9 DECEMBER 2024 Representation by lawyers and paid agents [1] As a general proposition, a person may be represented in a matter before the Commission by a lawyer or paid agent only with the Commission’s permission.1 The Respondents have applied for permission to have legal representation in this matter. [2] Amanda Eales, the applicant, opposes the Commission granting the Respondents that permission. [3] The Commission may only grant the Respondents’ request if:2 a. it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter; b. it would be unfair not to allow the Respondents to be represented because they are unable to represent themselves effectively; or c. it would be unfair not to allow the Respondents to be represented taking into account fairness between them and Ms Eales. [4] It is not necessary that all of these grounds be met. I need only be satisfied of one of them. But even if I am satisfied on one or more of the grounds, it does not follow that I must automatically grant permission. I must be persuaded that I should exercise my discretion in favour of the Respondents.3 [5] The Respondents’ application is supported by written submissions. They rely on the first two of the grounds listed at [3] above. [6] On the first ground, the Respondents submitted: a. This matter involves complexity, as the application refers to a broad range of allegations including bullying, harassment, coercion, misrepresentation and [2024] FWC 3430 DECISION -- 1 of 3 -- [2024] FWC 3430 2 other wrongdoing, allegedly occurring over a broad span of time including prior to Ms Eales’s employment with Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Ltd. Each allegation has to be considered within the jurisdictional confines of s 789FC,4 which increases the complexity of the matter and the issues to be dealt with. b. Due to the number of Respondents to the proceedings, and the number of allegations made by Ms Eales, the factual and legal issues that will arise are likely to be complex. Further, they will require a degree of familiarity with court and tribunal jurisprudence and authorities. c. In that context, the matter could be dealt with more efficiently if legal representation is granted [7] Ms Eales does not dispute that there was some complexity in the matter. However, she claims that this is the result of conduct on the part of the Respondents. In any event, she submitted that as a matter of fairness the Commission ought not grant the Respondents permission to be legally represented. She relies on the fact that she is self-represented. [8] The only test that the Commission must apply in respect of the first ground is whether granting permission would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. In applying that test I must take into account the complexity of the matter. But I do not need to find that the matter is complex. A matter does not necessarily have to be complex to warrant a grant of permission.5 [9] Ms Eales’s application is brought in the context of a history of disputes and litigation between the parties. In her material, she raises a number of grievances against the Respondents, collectively and individually. They arise from a variety of factual and legal contexts occurring over a number of years. Those grievances need to be corralled into the application for a stop bullying order currently before the Commission. That is, the Commission will need to ensure that matters on which Ms Eales relies are properly related to her application, and are not simply the re-agitation of historical grievances and claims. Granting permission for the Respondents to be legally represented would assist in identifying and focusing on the relevant factual and legal matters in issue, and so enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. [10] For these reasons, I am satisfied that the Respondents have made out the first ground on which they rely. It is not necessary for me to address the second ground. [11] It follows that my discretion to grant permission to the Respondents to be legally represented is enlivened. And I am satisfied that I should exercise it in favour of the Respondents. [12] In large part, my decision in that regard is based on the reasons for which I have found that legal representation would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. Further, in her material Ms Eales calls into question the conduct and motivation of the individual Respondents, in robust terms. Permitting the Respondents to be legally represented will assist in ensuring that interpersonal ill-will between Ms Eales and the individual Respondents does not derail the timely and efficient conduct of the hearing. -- 2 of 3 -- [2024] FWC 3430 3 [13] Permission is granted to Respondents to be legally represented. That permission encompasses the hearing on 16 and 17 January 2024 and any further conferences and hearings in the matter. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR782210> 1 Section 596(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“Act”). In this decision, all legislative references are to provisions of the Act. 2 Section 596(2) 3 Warrell v Walton [2013] FCA 291 at [24]; Singh v Metro Trains Melbourne [2015] FWCFB 3502 at [14]; Wellparks Holdings Pty Ltd t/as ERGT Australia v Kevin Govender [2021] FWCFB 268 at [48] 4 These proceedings involve an application by Ms Eales for a stop bullying order under s 789FC 5 Singh v Metro Trains Melbourne [2015] FWCFB 3502 at [16(2)]; Toby Artery v G Case & H Case T/A Gavin Case Marine Services [2021] FWC 4130 at [19], see also [20]-[21] -- 3 of 3 --