Bottrell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 158

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Bottrell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 158 PARTIES: Bottrell, Jessica (Applicant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent) CASE NO: TD/2026/5 PROCEEDING: Application to be legally represented DELIVERED ON: 7 May 2026 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Hartigan DP On the papers ORDER: Leave is granted for the Applicant to be legally represented pursuant to s 530(1)(e)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION: APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT- APPLICATION FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION - Industrial Relations Act 2016 – whether applicant can be legally represented under s 530 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 – where application opposed – factors to be considered by the Commission in determining whether to allow legal representation – circumstances of the case – where leave is granted for legal representation Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 529, s 530 CASES: Sillay v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] ICQ 16 -- 1 of 16 -- 2 State of Queensland (Department of Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v UGL Resources Pty Limited (Project Aurora) [2012] FWA 2966 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume [2022] ICQ 1 Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 079 Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] The Applicant, Ms Jessica Bottrell ('Ms Bottrell'), has filed an application for reinstatement seeking, inter alia, reinstatement to her former position ('the Proceedings'). [2] The Applicant has applied for orders that it be granted leave to be legally represented in the Proceedings pursuant to s 530 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') ('the Application'). [3] The Respondent, the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Department'), objects to leave being granted for the Applicant to be legally represented. Relevant background [4] Ms Bottrell commenced employment with the Department on 26 February 2019, and her employment was terminated on 16 December 2025.1 [5] The termination of employment occurred following a disciplinary and show cause process which commenced by letter dated 10 February 2025, with the suspension of Ms Bottrell from her employment.2 [6] By letter dated 11 February 2025, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice putting four allegations to Ms Bottrell about workplace conduct.3 1 The Applicant, 'Form 12' Application for reinstatement in Bottrell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), TD/2026/5, filed 7 January 2026. 2 The Respondent, 'Form 12A' Employer response to application for reinstatement in Bottrell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), TD/2026/5, filed 23 January 2026, 9. 3 Ibid 11. -- 2 of 16 -- 3 [7] On 23 February 2026, Ms Bottrell provided a response.4 [8] By letter dated 19 August 2025, the Department issued an Additional First Show Cause Notice putting four further allegations to Ms Bottrell.5 [9] On 9 September 2026, Ms Bottrell provided a response to the additional allegations.6 [10] By letter dated 14 November 2025, the Department determined that six of the eight allegations were capable of substantiation and found that her conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action and issued a Second Show Cause Notice, proposing the termination of her employment.7 [11] On 5 December 2026, Ms Bottrell provided her response to the Second Show Cause Notice requesting that alternative disciplinary action be considered.8 [12] By email correspondence dated 8 December 2026, the Department provided Ms Bottrell an opportunity to address the specific alternative disciplinary action that she considered more appropriate than termination.9 [13] On 9 December 2026, Ms Bottrell provided a response addressing the alternative disciplinary action sought.10 [14] By letter dated 15 December 2025, provided to Ms Bottrell on 16 December 2026, the Department determined to terminate Ms Bottrell's employment.11 [15] On 7 January 2026, Ms Bottrell filed an application for reinstatement in the Industrial Registry.12 [16] On 23 January 2026, the Department filed a response to the application for reinstatement and raised a jurisdictional objection on the ground that Ms Bottrell filed her application for reinstatement one day out of time.13 [17] Following a conciliation conference listed on 14 April 2026, the Commission issued directions requiring Ms Bottrell to file an application for legal representation, if any, by 17 April 2026, and the Department to file a response to such an application, if any, by 22 April 2026. 4 Ibid 13. 5 Ibid 14. 6 Ibid 15. 7 Ibid 16. 8 Ibid 18. 9 Ibid 19. 10 Ibid 20. 11 Ibid 22. 12 Ibid (n 1). 13 Ibid (n 2), Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 310(1)(a), 317(2)(a). -- 3 of 16 -- 4 [18] On 17 April 2026, Ms Bottrell filed an Application seeking to be legally represented in the Proceedings, together with a supporting affidavit. Attached to Ms Bottrell's affidavit was a report from her psychologist dated 30 July 2025.14 [19] On 22 April 2026, the Department filed a Response ('the Response') and supporting affidavit objecting to Ms Bottrell's application for legal representation in the Proceedings.15 [20] The question for my determination is whether leave should be granted for Ms Bottrell to be legally represented in the Proceedings. Relevant legislation [21] Section 529 of the IR Act relevantly provides for representation of parties as follows: 529 Representation of parties generally (1) A party to proceedings, or a person ordered or permitted to appear or to be represented in the proceedings, may be represented in the proceedings by— (a) a lawyer, only in accordance with section 530; or (b) an employee or officer of an organisation appointed in writing as the agent of the party or person; or (c) if the party or person is an organisation—an employee, officer or member of the organisation; or (d) if the party or person is an employer—an employee or officer of the employer; or (e) another person appointed in writing as the agent of the party or person, only with the leave of the industrial tribunal conducting the proceedings. (2) However, a party or person may not be represented under subsection (1)(e) by a person who— (a) directly or indirectly demands or receives a fee for representing the party or person; or 14 The Applicant, 'Form 101' Application in Bottrell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), TD/2026/5, filed 17 April 2026, the Applicant, 'Affidavit of Jessica Bottrell' Affidavit in Bottrell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), TD/2026/5, filed 17 April 2026, Attachment JMG-1 (Psychologist Report dated 30 July 2025). 15 The Respondent, 'Form 102' Response in Bottrell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), TD/2026/5, filed 22 April 2026. -- 4 of 16 -- 5 (c) is an employee or officer of, or acting for, an entity (other than an organisation) that purports to represent the industrial interests of employees or employers. (3) The industrial tribunal may give leave under subsection (1)(e) only if— (a) giving leave 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 itself, himself or herself; 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. (4) In this section— industrial tribunal means the Court of Appeal, court, full bench or commission or an Industrial Magistrates Court. proceedings— (a) means proceedings under this Act or another Act being conducted by the court, the commission, an Industrial Magistrates Court or the registrar; and (b) includes conciliation being conducted under part 3, division 4 or part 5, division 5A by a conciliator. [22] Section 530 of the IR Act provides for legal representation in the following terms: 530 Legal representation (1) A party to proceedings, or person ordered or permitted to appear or to be represented in the proceedings, may be represented by a lawyer only if— (a) for proceedings in the court— (i) all parties consent; or (ii) the court gives leave; or (iii) the proceedings are for the prosecution of an offence; or (b) for proceedings before the full bench—the full bench gives leave; or (c) for proceedings before the commission, other than the full bench, under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991—the commission gives leave; or -- 5 of 16 -- 6 (d) for proceedings before the commission, other than the full bench, relating to an industrial matter involving allegations of sexual harassment or sex or gender-based harassment—the commission gives leave; or (e) for other proceedings before the commission, other than the full bench— (i) all parties consent; or (ii) for a proceeding relating to a matter under a relevant provision—the commission gives leave; or … (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) would be unfair not to allow the party or person to be represented because the party or person is unable to represent itself, himself or herself; 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. … (7) In this section – industrial tribunal means the Court of Appeal, court, full bench, commission or Industrial Magistrates Court. proceedings – (a) means proceedings under this Act or another Act being conducted by the court, the commission, an Industrial Magistrates Court or the registrar; and (b) includes conciliation being conducted under part 3, division 4 or part 5, division 5A by a conciliator. relevant provision, for a proceeding before the commission other than the full bench means – (a) chapter 8; or (b) section 471; or (c) chapter 12, part 2 or 16. [23] In Sillay v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services),16 the Court considered the statutory construction of s 530 as follows: [30] Section 529(1)(a) prohibits representation of a party by a lawyer except in accordance with s 530. By s 530(1)(e), proceedings before the QIRC may involve legal representation only by leave. The bases upon which leave may be given are prescribed by s 530(4). [31] The circumstances upon which a lawyer may appear before the QIRC are governed by ss 529 and 530 of the Act. If the discretion arises under s 530(4) 16 [2024] ICQ 16. -- 6 of 16 -- 7 to give leave to a party to be represented by a lawyer, then the discretion falls to be exercised. There are no presumptions as to how the discretion is exercised. However, no executive or judicial discretion vested by an Australian statute is unfettered. The discretion is limited and circumscribed by the purpose for which it was bestowed. [32] Section 530 has a typical structure. The factual circumstances prescribed by each of ss 530(4)(a), (b) and (c) are jurisdictional facts, the establishment of which empowers the QIRC to exercise a discretion to grant leave to a party to be legally represented. [33] Subsection (4)(a) requires the QIRC to be satisfied that legal representation "would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently" if lawyers represent a party. However, that assessment is limited. It is conducted "having regard to the complexity of the matter". [34] The "matter" is the controversy the subject of the principal proceedings. The "proceedings" are the principal proceedings, namely the application for final relief. [35] The task then is to: (a) identify the complexity; and (b) identify how, "having regard to the complexity", having a party represented by lawyers would "enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently". [36] Each of ss 530(4)(b) and 530(4)(c) concern an assessment of fairness. However, the assessment to be conducted under each of the two subsections is quite different. [37] Section 530(4)(b) requires an assessment only of the position of the applicant for legal representation. Legal representation "may" be allowed where it would be unfair to deny it "because the party or person is unable to represent the party's or person's interests in the proceeding". Therefore, the first question is whether the party or person is "unable to represent [their] interests in the proceedings". If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, then the use of the word "because" requires a causal connection to be established between the inability of the person to represent themselves and any unfairness in not allowing representation. [38] Section 530(4)(c) requires consideration of the respective positions of the parties to the proceedings. Legal representation "may" be allowed where it would be unfair not to allow legal representation to the party. However, as with s 530(4)(a), the assessment is limited. The assessment of whether it would be "unfair" is made "having regard to fairness between the party or person, and other parties or persons in the proceedings". [39] In conducting the assessment under s 530(4)(c), s 530(5) is relevant. A lawyer employed by a party (here the State) may appear for that party without leave. Therefore, when considering the unfairness to a party who employs lawyers, -- 7 of 16 -- 8 the question becomes whether it would be unfair not to allow the party to be represented by private lawyers rather than their own employed lawyers. That assessment then is had "having regard to fairness between the party … and other parties in the proceedings".17 Is the discretion to grant leave enlivened? [24] The discretion to grant leave for a party to be legally represented in a proceeding is outlined in s 530(4) of the IR Act. The Commission may grant leave if: (a) it would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter;18 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 itself, himself or herself;19 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.20 [25] The Application identifies that Ms Bottrell seeks to rely on both ss 530(4)(a) and 530(4)(b) of the IR Act. The Respondent raised objections that address the provisions of s 530(4)(c) of the IR Act. Whilst the Commission need only be satisfied of one oof the sub-sections in s 530(4) in order to grant leave, I will consider each of ss 530(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the IR Act in this matter to ensure proper regard has been had to each of the parties' respective submissions. Section 530(4)(a) of the IR Act [26] Section 530(4)(a) of the IR Act requires the following assessment to be undertaken: (a) to identify the complexity of the 'matter', being the controversy the subject of the principal proceedings; and (b) to identify how, 'having regard to the complexity', having a party represented by lawyers would 'enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently'.21 [27] An assessment of the Applicant's Application for Reinstatement and the Respondent's Response, identifies that the controversies arising in the Proceedings are whether: 17 Ibid [30]-[39] (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). 18 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 530(4)(a). 19 Ibid s 530(4)(b). 20 Ibid s 530(4)(c). 21 Ibid (n 16) [34]-[35]. -- 8 of 16 -- 9 (a) the Applicant lodged the application within the 21-day period prescribed by the IR Act;22 (b) if the application was lodged out of time, exceptional circumstances justify the grant of an extension;23 (c) the dismissal was unfair, being harsh, unjust or unreasonable,24 having regard to the contested factual matters; (d) procedural fairness was afforded, including whether the disciplinary outcome was proportionate in the circumstances; and (e) if the dismissal was unfair, remedies should be ordered, specifically reinstatement, re-employment or compensation.25 [28] Given that the matter has yet to proceed through conciliation, I have elected not to list the details of the allegations which were found to have been substantiated. Needless to say, they can be characterised as being serious allegations. A lengthy investigation process, followed by two show cause processes were embarked on. The allegations together with the subsequent processes that were adopted will no doubt need to be considered by the Commission. [29] The Respondent contends that the matter is not complex as the issues in dispute concern factual matters relating to the Applicant's conduct and associated breaches of the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service.26 [30] While the matters identified at paragraphs [27] (c) to (e) above are common to applications for reinstatement, a review of the material filed to date indicates that those issues arise in circumstances involving multiple allegations, contested evidence and competing factual accounts. In addition, the jurisdictional objection raises threshold issues that must be determined before the substantive merits can be addressed and is, by its nature, legally complex.27 [31] Having regard to the complexity of the Proceeding, the Commission must identify whether having a party represented by a lawyer would enable the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently. With respect to the word "efficient", the Macquarie Dictionary relevantly provides as follows: 22 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 310(1), 317(2)(a). 23 Ibid ss 310(1)(b), 310(2). 24 Ibid s 316. 25 Ibid ss 321, 322. 26 Ibid (n 15). 27 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v UGL Resources Pty Limited (Project Aurora) [2012] FWA 2966, per SDP Richards at [23]. -- 9 of 16 -- 10 Efficient Adjective 1. Effective in the use of energy or resources. 2. adequate in operation or performance; having and using the requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable. 3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative. [Latin efficiens, present participle, accomplishing] – efficiently, adverb 28 [32] In the context of proceedings, I consider that dealing with proceedings more efficiently includes efficiently dealing with proceedings by effectively using resources and time. [33] In State of Queensland (Department of Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson (Dawson),29 his Honour O'Connor VP, referred to the involvement of legal representation and the efficient conduct of litigation, and the consideration of those matters in various authorities as follows: [22] The involvement of Counsel in the efficient conduct of litigation was expressed in Application by R.A.v where Deputy President Sams wrote: [18] Invariably, I have found the skills and expertise of an experienced industrial legal practitioner will be more of a help than a hindrance, particularly bearing in mind a legal practitioner’s professional obligations to the Commission and the Courts. In this respect, I refer to the comments of Mason CJ in Giannarelli v Wraith: [A] barrister’s duty to the court epitomizes the fact that the course of litigation depends on the exercise by counsel of an independent discretion or judgment in the conduct and management of a case in which he has an eye, not only to his client’s success, but also to the speedy and efficient administration of justice. In selecting and limiting the number of witnesses to be called, in deciding what questions will be asked in cross-examination, what topics will be covered in address and what points of law will be raised, counsel exercises an independent judgment so that the time of the court is not taken up unnecessarily, notwithstanding that the client may wish to chase every rabbit down its burrow. The administration of justice in our adversarial system depends in very large measure on the faithful exercise by barristers of this independent judgment in the conduct and management of the case. [19] More recently, a Full Bench of the Commission in E. Allen and Ors v Fluor Construction Services Pty Ltd said at para [48]: A lawyer’s duty to the Commission is paramount and supercedes a lawyer’s duties to their client. A grant of permission to appear pursuant to s.596(1) of the Act is based upon a presumption that the representative to whom leave is 28 Macquarie Dictionary (online at 11 December 2025) 'efficient'. 29 [2021] QIRC 118. -- 10 of 16 -- 11 granted will conduct themselves with probity, candour and honesty. The duty of advocates in that regard has been long recognised by the Commission. [20] Informality is one thing, but there is still a statutory foundation which must be observed in the exercise of all the Commission’s powers and functions. In my experience, the prospects of a case being run more efficiently and focused on the relevant issues to be determined, is more likely where competent legal representation is involved. I agree with what was said by the Full Bench in Priestley: [13] In our view DPS has established that representation would assist DPS to bring the best case possible. Representation by persons experienced in the relevant jurisdiction will be of undoubted assistance in this regard. We are satisfied that the particular counsel has the capacity to assist the DPS and assist the Tribunal in performing its functions (citations omitted).30 [34] Having regard to the matters referred to in paragraphs [28] – [30] above, they are matters that may potentially impact on the efficient conduct of the Proceedings in terms of effectively using the Commission's resources and time. [35] The Applicant submits that the existence of a technical jurisdictional objection, together with a substantively complex disciplinary process involving multiple and interrelated allegations, means that legal representation would assist in the efficient identification, refinement and presentation of the key factual and legal issues, particularly in time-limited proceedings such as conciliation conferences. The Applicant has deposed to the fact that she has no experience in running matters of this nature and that she is unsure of how to deal with the matter. The Respondent in turn, submits that conciliation conferences are intended to be informal and non-adversarial, that the issues in dispute concern factual matters capable of being addressed without legal complexity, and that legal representation at this stage is unnecessary and may detract from the efficient and effective conduct of conciliation, including where a jurisdictional objection has been raised. [36] At this preliminary stage, the matter is not limited to a straightforward exchange of views. A jurisdictional objection has been raised concerning the timing and validity of lodgement, which may constrain or determine the Commission’s capacity to deal with the substantive issues at conciliation. While the Commission may ultimately determine the jurisdictional issue later in the Proceedings, the identification and articulation of the relevant factual and statutory considerations at an early stage is assisted by legal representation. [37] Further, the substantive dispute involves multiple allegations spread across extensive show cause material, including allegations introduced some months after the investigation commenced. Even in a conciliation setting, the sheer volume of material and the interrelationship between allegations and the timing of the raising of those 30 Ibid [22]. -- 11 of 16 -- 12 allegations gives rise to a level of complexity that goes beyond a simple factual disagreement. [38] However, as noted above, it is for the Commission to identify in determining the Application, the complexity of the matter and then having regard to the complexity, to identify whether legal representation would enable the Proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently. The matter does not have to be complex, or compared to other matters that have come before the Commission, be more complex, but regard must be had to the complexity of the matter.31 [39] Having regard to the relative complexity of the issues, it is my opinion that if one of the parties is legally represented, that it will assist the Commission to ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the real issues of fact and law, and that if the matter proceeds beyond conciliation, that the distinction between evidence and submissions is observed, that witnesses are skilfully cross-examined, that the evidence is properly adduced and that the submissions are confined to the matters that the Commission must decide. [40] I consider that such assistance would enable the Proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently than would be the case if the Applicant was not legally represented. [41] These matters weigh in favour of the exercise of discretion. [42] Before concluding my assessment, the Respondent's submission with respect to the role of the Commission in conciliation should be considered. It was submitted that the 'Deputy President is well placed to guide discussion, clarify issues and facilitate resolution without the need for legal representation.'32 Whilst the Commission is tasked with the role which may include assisting the parties to guide discussions, clarify issues and assist in the facilitation of the resolution of the matter, it is also armed with functions and powers to be executed in conciliation in accordance with the IR Act. Unlike that of a legal representative, the Commission's role is not to advocate on behalf of one party or to advise one party of their legal rights and interests or to provide forensic advice to a party. Clearly, the role of the Commission and the role of a legal representative of a party are separate and distinct. [43] Accordingly, pursuant to s 530(4)(a) of the IR Act, legal representation will allow the proceedings to be dealt with more efficiently having regard to the complexity of the proceeding. 31 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume [2022] ICQ 1, [40]. 32 Ibid (n 15). -- 12 of 16 -- 13 Section 530(4)(b) of the IR Act [44] Ms Bottrell submits that it would be unfair not to allow her to be legally represented. [45] Section 530(4)(b) of the IR Act requires an assessment of the position of the Applicant for legal representation, considering:33 (a) whether the party or person is unable to represent their interests in the proceeding; and (b) if that question is answered in the affirmative, whether there is a causal connection between the person’s inability to represent themselves and any unfairness that would arise if legal representation were not permitted. [46] Ms Bottrell relies on her affidavit material in support of her Application for legal representation. In that material, she states that she does not feel capable of facing representatives of the Respondent and that doing so may produce a trauma response. She also deposes that she has found it difficult to properly engage with each of the allegations and contends that legal representation would assist her, as she does not feel capable or competent to adequately express her views or interests unassisted.34 [47] The Application further asserts that Ms Bottrell’s affidavit material demonstrates her difficulty in understanding the jurisdictional objection.35 While some inference may be drawn as to her general difficulties in engaging with the process, the affidavit itself does not expressly address the jurisdictional objection or set out any specific misunderstanding of that issue. However, it is accepted that Ms Bottrell's affidavit and Application establishes that she has a level of unfamiliarity with the legal process and does not feel capable or competent to represent her own interests. [48] Ms Bottrell further submits that she is experiencing a significant mental health burden associated with the Respondent’s disciplinary process, and that this has affected her ability to engage directly with the Respondent or to participate confidently in conferences or the Proceedings.36 Ms Bottrell provides medical evidence in support of her Application. [49] I note that Ms Bottrell’s medical evidence is limited in scope and does not specifically address the effect of the Proceedings on her health, nor her capacity to participate in a conciliation conference or the Proceedings more generally. Accordingly, it carries limited weight in the determination of whether Ms Bottrell has limited capacity to 33 Ibid (n 16). 34 Ibid (n 14). 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid, the Applicant, 'Affidavit of Jessica Bottrell' Affidavit in Bottrell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), TD/2026/5, filed 17 April 2026. -- 13 of 16 -- 14 represent herself. It does however support her contention that she has a medical condition and will benefit from support in managing her stressors which is nominated as including the workplace disciplinary process. This is a matter relevant as to whether Ms Bottrell is able to represent her own interests. [50] In addition, Ms Bottrell submits that, if the matter proceeds to a hearing, it would be unfair for her to be required to conduct cross-examination of witnesses who are former colleagues and complainants, where there is a real risk of personal animosity and where the evidence is likely to be contentious. She submits that legal representation would assist in ensuring that the proceedings are conducted fairly, efficiently, and without undue distress to her.37 These matters are relevant to the considerations as to whether Ms Bottrell is able to represent her own interests. [51] On the material before the Commission, Ms Bottrell has established that due to her limited knowledge of the legal process and inability to get across all of the allegations together with her medical condition and the potential animosity between herself and witnesses that she is unable to represent her own interests. Given these matters, it would be unfair not to grant Ms Bottrell leave to be legally represented in the Proceedings. These are also matters which weigh in favour of the exercise of the discretion to grant leave. Section 530(4)(c) of the IR Act [52] The Respondent submits that it would create an imbalance to grant legal representation for Ms Bottrell.38 Given the Respondent's resources, knowledge and experience within this jurisdiction this submission is somewhat curious. [53] Section 530(4)(c) of the IR Act requires consideration of the respective positions of the parties to the proceedings. The following assessment is required to be undertaken: (a) identify whether it would be unfair not to allow legal representation to the party; and (b) that assessment is then had, 'having regard to fairness between the party or person and other parties or persons in the proceedings.39 [54] The Department argues that permitting legal representation for Ms Bottrell only would create an imbalance between the parties that is inconsistent with the intended informality of conciliation.40 It should be noted at this juncture that it is only Ms Bottrell who has applied for leave to be legally represented in the Proceedings. 37 Ibid (n 14). 38 Ibid (n 15). 39 Ibid (n 16). 40 Ibid (n 15). -- 14 of 16 -- 15 [55] The Department submits that, if the Commission determines that leave for Ms Bottrell to be legally represented is granted, then considerations of procedural fairness would warrant the Department being afforded the opportunity to seek similar permission.41 Given the terms of the IR Act, that opportunity is already available to the Respondent. [56] In Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines),42 Neate IC determined that the decision by an Applicant to not engage in legal representation did not mean that the Respondent should be denied the opportunity to engage legal representation and relevantly held: … competent legal representation of at least one of the parties can assist in ensuring that the proceedings remain focused on the real questions of facts and law, that the distinction between evidence and submissions is observed, that evidence is properly adduced (whether by cross examination and by examination in chief, or the tendering of relevant documents), and that the submissions are confined to matters which the Commission must decide.43 [57] I have considered the Department’s submission that permitting Ms Bottrell to be legally represented would result in an imbalance between the parties and undermine the informal nature of the conciliation process. I do not accept that the informality of conciliation is compromised merely because one party is legally represented. [58] Further, pursuant to s 530(5) of the IR Act, a lawyer employed by a party may appear for that party without leave. The Respondent, as a State entity, has the benefit of access to in-house legal resources and the capacity to engage Crown Law to represent its interests. If the Respondent elects to engage external private legal representation, it remains open to it to seek leave to do so. [59] In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that permitting Ms Bottrell to be legally represented at conciliation gives rise to unfairness or procedural imbalance. [60] I consider that the balancing of fairness between the parties can be aided through proper case and court room management. It is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that it's practice and procedures are adhered to in order to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible and to determine that parties are dealt with justly and fairly. [61] For the above reasons, I consider that my discretion to grant leave for the Applicant to be legally represented in the Proceedings is enlivened pursuant to ss 530(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the IR Act. 41 Ibid. 42 [2014] QIRC 079. 43 Ibid 6. -- 15 of 16 -- 16 Conclusion [62] Having determined that the discretion pursuant to ss 530(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the IR Act is enlivened and after considering the matters referred to above, I have determined to exercise my discretion to grant legal representation for the Applicant. [63] For the above reasons, I have concluded that that a number of factors weigh in favour of granting leave for the Applicant to be legally represented in this proceeding pursuant to s 530(1)(e)(ii) of the IR Act. Order Leave is granted for the Applicant to be legally represented pursuant to s 530(1)(e)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). -- 16 of 16 --