Ferrara v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) & Ors [2026] QCAT 70

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Ferrara v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) & Ors [2026] QCAT 70 PARTIES: REECE STORME FERRARA (applicant) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE) (first respondent) JUSTIN DICKINSON (second respondent) KYLE JORDAN (third respondent) SCOTT HILL (fourth respondent) APPLICATION NO: ADL041-23 MATTER TYPE: Anti-Discrimination matters (costs) DELIVERED ON: 13 February 2026 HEARING DATE: 23 October 2025 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judicial Member Loos Member Bishop ORDERS: On or before 4:00pm on 18 May 2026 Reece Storme Ferrara must pay to: (a) The State of Queensland the amount of $250; (b) Justin Dickinson the amount of $1,250; (c) Kyle Jordan the amount of $1,250; and (d) Scott Hill the amount of $1,250. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – costs – where a proceeding was abandoned during the hearing and before a decision – whether the interests of justice require a costs order Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi (2021) 273 CLR 235 Health Ombudsman v George Du Toit [2024] QCA 235 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 Taylor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 319 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 23 October 2025, the Tribunal conducted a hearing of Reece Storme Ferrara’s (Mr Ferrara’s) discrimination complaint. [2] Mr Ferrara represented himself. He appeared by video link. [3] Partway through the hearing, Mr Ferrara said he did not agree or consent to the proceedings.1 [4] Mr Ferrara then disconnected his video link.2 [5] Mr Ferrera was given an opportunity (and time) to reconnect.3 [6] He did not re-establish his video link connection, nor did he communicate with the Tribunal further that day at all. [7] The respondents made oral applications for the proceeding to be dismissed.4 The applications were allowed.5 The Tribunal found Mr Ferrara had intentionally disconnected the video link and effectively walked out of the hearing.6 The Tribunal concluded Mr Ferrara’s refusal to participate unnecessarily disadvantaged the respondents and dismissed the matter pursuant to section 48(2)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).7 [8] The Tribunal ordered the parties file and serve submissions, if any, about costs.8 [9] The respondents seek costs.9 [10] Mr Ferrara says that each party should bear their own costs or, alternatively, a decision about costs be reserved pending compliance with his proposed directions and a procedurally fair re-run.10 1 TR1-18, line 25. 2 TR1-19 line 24 to TR1-22, line 7. 3 TR1-20, line 31 to 35. 4 TR1-22, line 16 to 20. 5 Reasons and Decision at [44]. 6 Reasons and Decision at [27]. 7 Reasons and Decision at [44]. 8 Tribunal Directions dated 23 October 2025. 9 First Respondent’s submissions, page 6 at [19]; Second, Third and Fourth Respondent’s Submissions, page 9 at [33]. 10 Mr Ferrara’s Submissions, page 4 at [9]-[10]. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 [11] If Mr Ferrara seeks to have a re-run, his option was to appeal the Tribunal’s decision in the Queensland Court of Appeal. He did not do so. [12] In relation to Mr Ferrara’s proposed directions, he seeks:11 (a) from the respondents, the full transcript/audio and any Registry connection logs for 23 October 2025; (b) from the respondents, all citations relied upon with page and line pinpoints; (c) from the Tribunal, the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC) referral given to QCAT on 8 May 2023; (d) from the Tribunal, fresh orders rescheduling the timetable for the provision of submissions to 21 days after (a) to (c) above are complied with; and, (e) from the Tribunal, an order that grants him leave to participate in all future hearings remotely. [13] Mr Ferrara could have requested some of this information from the QCAT Registry when preparing his reply to submissions. [14] With respect to (b), the respondents appropriately included all citations relied upon in their submissions. [15] The additional material sought by Mr Ferrera is not going to be determinative of the current costs’ applications. It is not in the interests of justice to order that the respondents provide that material now. The statutory framework [16] Section 100 of the QCAT Act provides: Other than as provided under this Act or an enabling Act, each party to a proceeding must bear the party’s own costs for the proceeding. [17] Section 102 provides: (1) The tribunal may make an order requiring a party to a proceeding to pay all or a stated part of the costs of another party to the proceeding if the tribunal considers the interests of justice require it to make the order. (2) However, the only costs the tribunal may award under subsection (1) against a party to a proceeding for a minor civil dispute are the costs stated in the rules as costs that may be awarded for minor civil disputes under this section. (3) In deciding whether to award costs under subsection (1) or (2) the tribunal may have regard to the following— (a) whether a party to a proceeding is acting in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party to the proceeding, including as mentioned in section 48(1)(a) to (g); (b) the nature and complexity of the dispute the subject of the proceeding; 11 Mr Ferrara’s Submissions, page 3-4 at [8]. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 (c) the relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties to the proceeding; (d) for a proceeding for the review of a reviewable decision— (i) whether the applicant was afforded natural justice by the decision-maker for the decision; and (ii) whether the applicant genuinely attempted to enable and help the decision-maker to make the decision on the merits; (e) the financial circumstances of the parties to the proceeding; (f) anything else the tribunal considers relevant. [18] The rule in section 100 is subject to other provisions of the QCAT Act, including section 102. That gives the Tribunal the discretion to make a costs order where it considers ‘the interests of justice require it’. [19] Pursuant to section 48(2)(c) of the QCAT Act: The Tribunal may- … (c) make an order under section 102, against the party causing the disadvantage, to compensate another party for any reasonable costs incurred unnecessarily. [20] In considering whether the ‘interests of justice’ require an order for costs, the Tribunal may have regard to the matters stated in section 102(3). The respondents’ submissions Section 102(3)(a) – Whether the respondents were disadvantaged [21] The respondents say Mr Ferrara caused them unnecessary disadvantage.12 The respondents identify the following examples:13 (a) failing to comply with Tribunal orders without a reasonable excuse; (b) failing to attend an application hearing; and (c) sending rude and aggressive correspondence. [22] They also rely on the Tribunal’s reasons for dismissing the proceedings on 23 October 2025.14 [23] Mr Ferrara says that he disconnected the video link because the ‘hearing format aggravated known trauma triggers.’15 [24] The Tribunal acknowledges Mr Ferrara’s mental health vulnerabilities. Despite that, he had fair warning of what the hearing was going to be and the people who appeared on his screen who he claims triggered him, were the same people he insisted attend the hearing for him to cross-examine. Mr Ferrara did not seek to be represented, nor 12 First Respondent’s Submissions, page 5 at [13]. 13 Second, Third and Fourth Respondent’s Submissions, page 4 at [13]. 14 First Respondent’s Submissions, page 4 at [12]. 15 Mr Ferrara’s submissions page 6 at [24]. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 did he ask for any arrangements or accommodations to be put in place to help with his vulnerability. [25] The Tribunal finds Mr Ferrara’s actions did cause the respondents a disadvantage. Section 102(3)(b) – the nature and complexity of the dispute [26] The first respondent submits that this is not a complex dispute and that there is no basis to conclude Mr Ferrara did not comprehend the matters in issue.16 It refers to the Tribunal’s reasons on 23 October 2025, that ‘during the course of the hearing today, he understood and responded to questions in a way that indicated that comprehension of what was happening.’17 [27] The matter involved several different statutes including the Human Rights Act 2019 and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. [28] Mr Ferrara is self-represented. The matter has a complex history. On that basis, the Tribunal considers that it is not a simple dispute. Section 102(3)(c) – the relative strengths of the claims being made [29] The respondents submit Mr Ferrara’s claim is weak.18 [30] As this matter was dismissed prior to any substantive issues being heard, the merits of Mr Ferrara’s claim remain undetermined. [31] Without having heard Mr Ferrara’s evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal is unable to determine, at this time, the strength of his claim. Section 102(3)(d) – for a proceeding for the review of a reviewable decision [32] As the proceeding is not for the review of a reviewable decision, this subsection does not apply. Section 102(3)(e) – the financial circumstances of the parties [33] The first respondent says that it is unaware of Mr Ferrara’s financial circumstances.19 It notes he has not tendered any evidence on that point.20 [34] Mr Ferrara submits he is on a disability support pension.21 There is no evidence about that, but there is no reason to doubt his claim. Section 102(3)(f) – anything else the tribunal considers relevant [35] The language of section 102 is to be construed in the context of the QCAT Act as a whole.22 16 First Respondent’s Submissions, page 5 at [14]. 17 TR 1-35, lines 20-24. 18 First Respondent’s Submissions, page 5 at [15]; Second, Third and Fourth Respondent’s Submissions, page 7 at [27]. 19 First Respondent’s Submissions, page 6 at [18]. 20 First Respondent’s Submissions, page 6 at [18]. 21 Mr Ferrara’s Submissions, page 3 at [5]. 22 Health Ombudsman v George Du Toit [2024] QCA 235, [21] (‘Du Toit’). -- 5 of 6 -- 6 [36] The object of the QCAT Act is to have the Tribunal deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal, and quick.23 [37] In submissions, Mr Ferrara documents his mental health vulnerabilities, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In support, he provided: (a) an affidavit affirmed 2 November 2023; and (b) a Brown Executive Function/Attention Scales Individual Report dated 15 July 2020. [38] In upholding the objects of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal considers Mr Ferrara’s mental health vulnerabilities, and his purported financial circumstances weigh against an order that he pay costs. That said, those issues must be balanced in the context of the whole of the case – which includes a very substantial volume of material that Mr Ferrera produced. The respondents had to review that material and develop responses to it. After that preparatory work, and given the lengthy history of the matter, for the hearing to be abandoned so abruptly has disadvantaged the respondents. Exercise of discretion [39] The discretion under section 102 is wide. The Tribunal is to do what ‘the interests of justice require’. The ‘interests of justice’ is a wide term.24 What constitutes ‘the interests of justice’ varies according to the circumstances of each case.25 [40] The Tribunal may make an order requiring a party to pay all or part of the costs of another party if the Tribunal considers that the interests of justice call for such an order.26 Taking all the above factors into consideration, the Tribunal is satisfied it is in the interests of justice to make an order for costs. [41] Section 107 of the QCAT Act requires the Tribunal to, if possible, fix costs. Considering Mr Ferrara’s mental health difficulties and his purported financial resources, the Tribunal is satisfied that a fixed amount for part of the respondents’ costs is the most appropriate order. Orders [42] On or before 4:00pm on 18 May 2026, Reece Storme Ferrara must pay to: (a) the State of Queensland the amount of $250; (b) Justin Dickinson the amount of $1,250; (c) Kyle Jordan the amount of $1,250; and (d) Scott Hill the amount of $1,250. 23 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 section 3. 24 Taylor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 319. 25 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi (2021) 273 CLR 235 [41]. 26 Du Toit [39]. -- 6 of 6 --