Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 7) [2026] QIRC 46

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 7) [2026] QIRC 046 PARTIES: Chen, Victor (Applicant) v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (Respondent) CASE NOS: GP/2020/27 & TD/2021/20 PROCEEDING: Applications in existing proceedings DELIVERED ON: 20 February 2026 HEARING DATE: 17 February 2026 DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Respondent's submissions, 13 February 2026 Barrister Y's submissions, 13 February 2026 Applicant's submissions, 16 February 2026 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon Brisbane ORDERS: 1. Pursuant to r 61 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Rules'), the attendance notices issued to Mr Potts; Dr Forbes; Associate Professor Buckmaster; Barrister Y and Solicitor Z are set aside. 2. The request to set aside the attendance notices issued to Dr Batra and Dr Jayasinghe is dismissed. -- 1 of 14 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT – GENERAL PROTECTIONS APPLICATION RELATING TO DISMISSAL – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS – where the Applicant has issued attendance notices ahead of hearing – where the Respondent objects to the attendance of several witnesses – where the Respondent seeks that the attendance notices be set aside – where the witnesses themselves object to attending – consideration of r 61 of the Industrial Relations Tribunals Rules 2011 (Qld) – consideration of 59(b) of the Industrial Relations Tribunals Rules 2011 (Qld) – where several attendance notices are set aside LEGISLATION: Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 59(b), 61, 97 CASES: Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 3) [2025] QIRC 189 Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service [2024] QCA 241 APPEARANCES: Dr V Chen, the Applicant himself Mr PM Zielinski of counsel, instructed by MinterEllison for the Respondent Reasons for Decision [1] This decision assumes familiarity with Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 6). [2] Dr Chen has issued attendance notices ahead of the substantive hearing of GP/2020/27 and TD/2021/20. [3] The Respondent has made an application for several of these notices to be set aside. Additionally, two individuals have made their own application for the notices issued to them to be set aside. The Respondent also seeks that the attendance notice issued to -- 2 of 14 -- 3 Barrister Y and Solicitor Z be set aside.1 Barrister Y has also applied to set aside the attendance notice issued to them. [4] In support of its application to have some notices set aside, the Respondent says that the evidence Dr Chen seeks to adduce from these witnesses is not directly relevant to any fact in issue. The Respondent says that the attendance of those persons is unnecessary for this proceeding to be determined and will prolong hearing time, inconvenience the individuals concerned and cause the unnecessary expenditure of public monies on legal costs. [5] The parties made written submissions on the question of whether the attendance notices should be set aside. These written submissions were supplemented with oral submissions made at the interlocutory hearing. [6] This decision deals with the attendance notices issued to: • Dr Forbes • Associate Professor Buckmaster • Mr Potts • Barrister Y • Solicitor Z • Dr Batra • Dr Jayasinghe Legal Framework [7] In Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 3) [2025] QIRC 189 ('Plumb'), Deputy President Merrell considered the relevant rules and principles to be considered in determining a request to set aside an attendance notice to give evidence. The Deputy President said:2 There are no factors stated in r 61 of the Rules that are to be considered in respect of the discretion that may be exercised to set aside an attendance notice. Therefore, such factors must be determined 1 Pursuant to r 97 I have determined to anonymise the names of Barrister Y and Solicitor Z. This will give further effect to the anonymisation of these names in Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service [2024] QCA 241 [33]. 2 Plumb [32]. -- 3 of 14 -- 4 by implication from the subject matter, scope and purpose of the relevant rules.3 Rule 59(b) of the Rules sets out what must be included in an attendance notice in terms of informing the person of the grounds upon which they can apply to the Commission to have an attendance notice to produce set aside. As a consequence, such an attendance notice may be set aside on grounds that at least include those grounds. [8] Rule 59(b) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Rules') sets out the following as examples of sufficient grounds one may raise in applying to have the attendance notice set aside: (i) the document or thing is not directly relevant to the proceedings; or (ii) privilege; or (iii) oppressiveness, including oppressiveness because substantial expense may be incurred that may not be reimbursed; or (iv) noncompliance with these rules. [9] In Plumb, Deputy President Merrell discussed 'direct relevance' as such: [34] Evidence which is '…directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding' is evidence which would tend to prove or disprove an allegation in issue in the proceedings.4 The expression '…directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceeding' should not be taken to mean direct evidence as opposed to circumstantial evidence and, for example, a document may not itself prove a fact in issue but it may nonetheless supply circumstantial evidence, which taken with other evidence, tends to do so.5 [10] Here, Dr Chen has issued attendance notices to witnesses to appear at the hearing. I understand that at the time he issued those notices, he was doing so on the basis of having sought to file his Applicant's Yet Further Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions and his Further Amended Application. In Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 6), I struck out a number of amendments sought by Dr Chen. To be clear, I will be considering the applications to set aside attendance notices in relation to the matters to be heard and determined in Dr Chen's Yet Further Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions and Amended Application as they now read with certain amendments struck out. Mr Potts [11] Dr Chen submits that the evidence of Mr Potts is necessary in order to provide: a) Confirmation what processes occurred in relation to the legislative requirements Crime and Corruption Commission ("CCC") and Public Interest Disclosure Act between 1 February to 6 February 2020. 3 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24, 39-40 (Mason J). 4 Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors; Santos Ltd & Ors v Xstrata Queensland Ltd [2005] QSC 323 [45] (McMurdo J) and Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 025, [42] (Davis J, President) and Niceforo v Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance Company & Ors [2023] QSC 282, [18] (Burns J). 5 Niceforo v Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance Company & Ors [2023] QSC 282, [18] (Burns J). -- 4 of 14 -- 5 b) Confirmation whether the CCC had ever made assessment of "suspected corrupt conduct" on the part of the Applicant after 1 February 2020. [12] The Respondent requests that pursuant to r 61, the attendance notice directed to Mr Potts be set aside. Respondent's submissions [13] With respect to Mr Potts' evidence, the Respondent first provides context by way of a letter authored by Mr Grant Brown of the Respondent to Industrial Commissioner Dwyer who had considered Dr Chen's casual conversion appeal. In this letter, Mr Brown said, relevantly:6 In late January 2020, serious allegations were raised about Dr Chen's interactions with another clinician of the Health Service. These allegations were assessed as suspected corrupt conduct by the Crime and Corruption Commission. The Health Service has made preliminary enquiries has made into the allegations and the evidence supports the commencement of a disciplinary process pursuant to sections 187 and 188 of the Public Service Act 2008. [14] The Respondent then refers to a subsequent letter from Ms Hannah Bloch of the Respondent which provided an outcome to the complaint referred to within Mr Brown's letter to Industrial Commissioner Dwyer. Therein, it was said that the allegations against Dr Chen had been referred to Mr Potts for 'assessment' and that Mr Potts advised that 'if proven, the concerns raised by [redacted person's] complaint would amount to corrupt conduct as defined in the Crime and Corruption Act 2001'.7 [15] The Respondent submits that Dr Chen has previously objected to his alleged conduct being characterised or assessed as potential corrupt conduct.8 The Respondent says that this objection has been made without due regard to the broad meaning of the term under the Crime and Corruption Act. The Respondent also submits that Dr Chen has made allegations that the Crime and Corruption Commission had not, despite the suggestion in the letter, made any assessment of Dr Chen's conduct. To this end, the Respondent submits that ' [w]hether the reporting requirements that apply under the CC Act were met or whether the CCC did in fact assess any report from GCHHS are not questions that can have any relevance to whether the pleaded unlawful adverse actions were taken against Dr Chen or whether his dismissal was fair'.9 [16] The Respondent submits that even in the event that Mr Brown was mistaken in his letter to Industrial Commissioner Dwyer, the evidence of Mr Potts 'does not bear directly upon a relevant fact in issue'.10 6 Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 13 February 2026 [13]. 7 Ibid [14] citing exhibit 4. 8 Ibid [15]. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid [16], citing Huyghe v State of Queensland (Mackay Hospital and Health Service) [2022] QIRC 14 [17]. -- 5 of 14 -- 6 Dr Chen's submissions in reply [17] Dr Chen maintains his submissions regarding the necessity of calling Mr Potts as a witness. He says that his evidence is necessary in order to 'confirm factual matters whether CCC involvement or CCC orders from alleged disciplinary concerns allegedly referred to the CCC by GCHHS around February 2020 – otherwise prima facie allegations, assertions, representations recorded by Mr Brown and Ms Bloch that the CCC had been involved and the CCC made assessment of "suspected corrupt conduct" around February 2020 remain without any evidentiary proof and have been egregiously false and misleading whereby a fraud has been perpetrated on the Commission since 9 April 2020'.11 The attendance notice issued to Mr Potts is set aside [18] The disciplinary finding against Dr Chen exists whether or not it has been assessed as suspected corrupt conduct. I understand that Dr Chen is concerned with the use of the term 'corrupt conduct' in connection with his actions, however that is not a matter that will be heard or resolved in the hearing of his reinstatement application or the general protections application. [19] The Respondent maintains that one of the operative reasons for actions it took against Dr Chen was the ongoing disciplinary process. Whether the assessment that the conduct was suspected corrupt conduct by the Crime and Corruption Commission or whether that assessment was undertaken by Mr Potts has no capacity to influence the outcome of the discipline process. Further to that, the source of any assessment of the conduct as suspected corrupt conduct can have no bearing on whether Dr Chen's dismissal was unfair or on whether adverse action was taken against him. [20] There is no evidence that Industrial Commissioner Dwyer took any action as a result of the correspondence Mr Grant Brown sent him. [21] The hearing will not be an opportunity for a broad inquiry into Dr Chen's grievances. Accordingly, the hearing is not the avenue for Dr Chen to interrogate the quite routine information he was provided as a part of the show cause process regarding the possibility that if proven, his actions may amount to corrupt conduct. [22] Pursuant to Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 6), any allegation on the part of Dr Chen that the disciplinary process was a sham or an adverse action taken against him, has been struck out and will not be the subject of consideration at the hearing. 11 Dr Chen's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 16 February 2026 [42]. -- 6 of 14 -- 7 [23] The narrow evidence Dr Chen seeks for Mr Potts to provide to the Commission is not directly relevant to a question before the Commission in matters GP/2020/27 and TD/2021/20. [24] On that basis, pursuant to r 61 of the Rules, the attendance notice is set aside. Dr Batra and Dr Jayasinghe [25] In the email accompanying the Attendance Notices, Dr Chen states that he is calling Dr Batra and Dr Jayasinghe (amongst others) to provide evidence around 'genuine ongoing operational requirements' including the required staffing levels for interventional cardiologists. Dr Chen also refers to rostering issues and patient safety issues. Dr Batra's submissions [26] By email dated 13 February 2026, Dr Batra sought leave from the Commission to be excused from attending on the following bases: By way of background, Dr Chen was previously engaged by Queensland Health as a casual Visiting Medical Officer to assist in providing coverage for the 24-hour primary PCI service. My understanding is that his current proceedings concern a dispute between Dr Chen and Queensland Health regarding his employment status. I wish to make clear that I have no personal interest in the outcome of these proceedings and hold no position either for or against the matters in dispute. The issues to be determined relate to employment and human resources rules/arrangements between Queensland Health and Dr Chen, and in my view can be adjudicated without my evidence. I do not believe that I am able to provide any material or probative evidence that would assist the Commission beyond what is already available from the parties directly involved. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Commission grant me leave to not be called or required to attend as a witness in these proceedings. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Dr Jayasinghe's submissions [27] By email dated 14 February 2026, Dr Jayasinghe advised that he sought to be excused from attendance at the hearing on the following bases: 1. I had no involvement in the decisions made by the organisation in relation to this matter, individuals associated with this matter or the events that led to it 2. I have only limited recollection of the circumstances during the period when these events may have taken place as my focus was on my own clinical commitments and clinical flow -- 7 of 14 -- 8 3. So therefore I do not believe, to the best of my comprehension, I have any useful information to share as a witness that could potentially influence the proceedings or the outcomes related to this matter Dr Chen's submissions in reply [28] As an addendum to his submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 16 February 2026, Dr Chen submits that I should not set aside the attendance notice of Dr Batra in circumstances where he is to 'provide factual evidence on "ongoing operational need" and what must have been known in the minds of the Respondent decision-makers from 2018 onwards'.12 [29] Dr Chen did not make written submissions about Dr Jayasinghe's request to be excused. This may be because Dr Jayasinghe's emailed objection came on the same day as Dr Chen was to file his submissions. I will take his submissions regarding Dr Batra to also apply to Dr Jayasinghe. The Respondent's submissions [30] At the interlocutory hearing of the matter, the Respondent made submissions to the effect that it neither supported nor opposed the objections to attendance from Drs Batra and Jayasinghe the subject of this decision. I will not set aside the attendances notices issued to Dr Batra and Dr Jayasinghe [31] I understand that Dr Chen seeks to lead evidence as to the operational need for him to be employed at the time of his dismissal and the operational requirements of the Respondent at the relevant time. Given that operational reasons or requirements are key issues in question, I find that any evidence that may tend to prove or disprove the competing positions of the parties in this regard could be considered directly relevant. [32] It may be that Drs Batra and Jayasinghe are of the view that they have limited knowledge of the relevant matters and that their evidence may not have any influence on the outcome of the hearing. However, both witnesses are not necessarily best placed to make that assessment. [33] During the hearing, it will remain open to the parties to object to certain evidence on the grounds of relevance or to make submissions as to the weight that certain evidence should be afforded. [34] In circumstances where these two witnesses do not seek to be excused for any reason other than their own assessment of the impact of their evidence, I will not set aside the attendance notices issued to them. 12 Ibid [47]. -- 8 of 14 -- 9 Dr Forbes and Associate Professor Buckmaster [35] In his email accompanying the attendance notices, Dr Chen says that he seeks '…Executive and Clinical Director witnesses Dr Forbes and Associate Professor Buckmaster to provide evidence as to existence of when/whom/how/what content of any agreed contractual agreement obtained from the Applicant and whether they were GCHHS Level 3 or 4 Delegates (where only Level 3 and above Delegates can sign employment agreements). [36] Dr Forbes was Clinical Director – Diagnostics Emergency Medical Services up until around March 2017. [37] Associate Professor Buckmaster replaced Dr Forbes and held that role until about 9 April 2018. Respondent's submissions [38] The Respondent refers to Dr Chen's pleadings that the engagement of Dr Broyd in April 2020 was adverse action taken against him in circumstances where it 'constituted an adverse deterioration of an advantage enjoyed by [Dr Chen]' because the likelihood that he would be converted from casual were lessened.13 The Respondent submits that he makes similar allegations with respect to the appointment of Dr Vo.14 The Respondent then refers to the pleadings which were ultimately struck out in the Amended Application and Statement of Facts and Contentions Decision that the re-engagement of Dr Vo and others post-dating his termination was also adverse action taken against him. [39] The Respondent reiterates its assertion that the appointment of Drs Broyd and Vo during Dr Chen's period of employment did not have a 'real and substantial prospect of affecting [Dr Chen's] eligibility for casual conversion' in circumstances where Dr Chen was not eligible for casual conversion from 14 September 2020 as he was employed as a visiting medical officer ('VMO').15 Dr Chen disputes this characterisation of his employment, submitting that he was employed as a SMO on a casual basis. [40] The Respondent goes on to summarise the basis upon which Dr Chen intends to call Dr Forbes, namely, to lead evidence:16 (a) as to whether, until March 2017, he was a VMO, or whether Dr Forbes believed that he was a VMO; (b) in support of the sham contracting allegations that he raises for the first time in his DAYFASC, which allegations are fundamentally misconceived (see Leave Submissions [26]–[29]); and 13 Respondent's submissions (n 6) [6] citing AFASFC at [15A]-[15D] and [30A]. 14 Ibid citing AFASFC at [15A]-[15D] and [30B]. 15 Ibid [7]. 16 Ibid [8]. -- 9 of 14 -- 10 (c) Dr Forbes' view about the number of interventional cardiologists that 'were needed for consistently increasing clinical demands and safe provision of life-preserving services at the new GCUH site since 2014'. [41] The Respondent submits that the evidence Dr Chen seeks to adduce in calling Dr Forbes 'can only be described as historic'.17 Further, the Respondent submits that Dr Chen has failed to explain with any clarity how Dr Forbes can sensibly give evidence about state of affairs during the time period central to the proceedings being 23 April 2020 to 21 May 2021. Where Dr Chen submits that Dr Forbes will be called to subjectively ascertain whether he was a VMO or SMO, the Respondent submits that the characterisation of Dr Chen's employment will be an objective question to be asked during the hearing. [42] The Respondent submits that Associate Professor Buckmaster's evidence is 'too far removed from the real issues in dispute'.18 Dr Chen's submissions in reply [43] With respect to the requirement to call Dr Forbes and Associate Professor Buckmaster, Dr Chen's submissions on this point were succinct and have been excerpted here:19 The Applicant maintains the position that the Commission must call Executive and Clinical Director witnesses Drs Forbes and Buckmaster to provide evidence as to nature of the Applicant's engagement and existence of good faith abidance of agreed contractual agreement terms and conditions obtained from the Applicant - whether they were GCHHS Level 3 or 4 Delegates (where only Level 3 or above Delegates may sign an employment agreement). The attendance notices issued to Dr Forbes and Associate Professor Buckmaster are set aside [44] I have given consideration as to whether the evidence Dr Chen says Dr Forbes and Associate Professor Buckmaster can give to the commission is directly relevant to an issue in question in the proceedings. I agree with the Respondent that Dr Forbes and Associate Professor Buckmaster cannot give evidence directly relevant to the proceedings. [45] Questions as to the operational requirements and needs of the Respondent during the relevant period to these applications are unable to be answered by Dr Forbes in circumstances where he ceased employment in 2017. Likewise, Associate Professor Buckmaster held his role until April 2018. [46] While there is a contest between the parties as to whether Dr Chen was employed as a VMO or an SMO at the time of the application for casual conversion relevant to these 17 Ibid [9]. 18 Ibid [10]. 19 Dr Chen's submissions (n 11) [41]. -- 10 of 14 -- 11 proceedings and at the time of his dismissal need to be answered by witnesses who understand the situation at the relevant time. Dr Forbes and Associate Professor Buckmaster cannot provide evidence about Dr Chen's employment situation at the relevant time. [47] What level of delegation either Dr Forbes or Associate Professor Buckmaster held at the time they were employed is not directly relevant to a matter in question at the hearing. Likewise, the view of either Dr Forbes or Associate Professor Buckmaster about the operational needs of the hospital a number of years before Dr Chen's dismissal is not relevant. [48] To the extent that Dr Chen sought to call these witnesses to support his new allegations of sham contracting, I note that I have struck those amendments out. [49] I am satisfied that there will be witnesses at hearing who are able to attest to the operational requirements and circumstances of the Respondent during the time period relevant to these matters. Further, I am satisfied that there will also be witnesses and documentation before the Commission to assist in objectively establishing whether Dr Chen was employed as a VMO or an SMO. [50] I do not accept that either Dr Forbes or Associate Professor Buckmaster are able to give evidence directly relevant to the matters in issue in the proceedings. On that basis and pursuant to r 61 of the Rules, their attendance notices are set aside. Barrister Y and Solicitor Z [51] Dr Chen has issued attendance notices to Barrister Y and Solicitor Z in an apparent wish to continue his grievances against them and pursue scandalous allegations he has repeatedly raised in various contexts in the absence of any evidence. [52] In his witness list, Dr Chen submits that Barrister Y's evidence is required in order to provide: a) Confirmation whether or not further probity breaches extended to Solicitor Z, other employees at MinterEllison Brisbane offices, and/or GCHHS executives Mr Grant Brown and Ms Hannah Bloch— in circumstances Barrister Y accepted a brief to advise the Applicant around August to September 2020 but did not disclose to the Applicant her engagement by MinterEllison, Mr Grant Brown and Ms Hannah Bloch until August 2020. [53] Dr Chen submits that Solicitor Z's evidence will provide: a) Confirmation whether or not probity breaches extended to [themselves], other employees at MinterEllison Brisbane offices and/or GCHHS executives Mr Grant Brown and Ms Hannah Bloch — where [they] had instructed Barrister Y around August 2020, where Barrister Y then also accepted a brief to advise the Applicant around August to September 2020. -- 11 of 14 -- 12 The attendance notices issued to Barrister Y and Solicitor Z are set aside [54] As a preliminary matter, in Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 6), I have struck out Dr Chen's amendment seeking to add complaints and allegations against Barrister Y to his Further Yet Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions. [55] Dr Chen's allegations about the conduct of Barrister Y, and by extension Solicitor Z, will not be heard as part of GP/2020/27 and TD/2021/20 [56] In Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 6), I gave reasons for striking out Dr Chen's amendments to his application and SOFC as they relate to Barrister Y. However, I will briefly address the matter further here. [57] Dr Chen has repeatedly raised the same complaint about Barrister Y before this Commission, the Industrial Court of Queensland and the Queensland Court of Appeal. On each occasion, his 'serious and groundless'20 allegations in this regard have been rejected. [58] I also note that Dr Chen has also been provided with correspondence from his own insurer,21 and MinterEllison addressing his allegations against Barrister Y. [59] The Respondent submits that the attendance notices directed to Barrister Y and Solicitor Z are defective in that they seek to advance scandalous allegations that have been rejected in other forums. The Respondent also submits that Dr Chen's conduct in continuing to press these allegations is an abuse of process. [60] It is also the case that, as the Respondent submits, Dr Chen has not articulated how anything that Barrister Y or Solicitor Z might say would be directly relevant to any contested matter in the proceedings. [61] To the extent that Dr Chen believed Barrister Y or Solicitor Z may give evidence in support of amendments he sought to make stating that the disciplinary proceedings where a 'sham' and the disciplinary process constituted adverse action, I have struck these amendments out. [62] Further, with regard to Dr Chen's Further Yet Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions and Further Amended Application following Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (No. 6), there is no cogent connection between Barrister Y, Solicitor Z and the matters in issue in GP/2020/27 and TD/2021/20. On that basis, there is no directly relevant evidence they may give. 20 As they were described by the Court of Appeal in Chen v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service [2024] QCA 241 [39]-[42]. 21 Exhibit 1 (which was in evidence before the Court of Appeal): Exhibit 6. -- 12 of 14 -- 13 [63] Barrister Y has provided written submissions in support of their request to have the attendance notice set aside. I have had regard to those submissions, and I will not set them out in detail here. However, I note that Barrister Y submits that any information they can provide the Commission is: 'irrelevant; or confidential (and potentially subject to legal professional privilege); and/or the Attendance Notice is oppressive and an abuse of process.22 [64] Barrister Y's submissions address the relevant principles to consider in determining if an attendance notice is an abuse of process, including the following statement from Grove that determining if an attendance notice is an abuse of process is:23 …a broad merit-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved. It also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the processes of the court… [65] Barrister Y notes that Dr Chen has been asserting one or more allegations against them on an ongoing basis since at least December 2022, over a three-year period. Further, as has been discussed above, the Industrial Court and the Court of Appeal have both indicated that Dr Chen's breach of confidentiality allegation is a serious allegation to make against a legal practitioner and that he has produced no evidence to support such a serious allegation. [66] Barrister Y submits that there are appropriate avenues for individuals to raise complaints against a legal practitioner and that it is an abuse of the Commission's processes and procedurally unfair to Barrister Y to use proceedings in the Commission for this purpose. [67] The attendance notices issued to Barrister Y and Solicitor Z are set aside on the basis of relevance. [68] I also set aside the attendance notice issued to Barrister Y on the basis that it is an abuse of process. Dr Chen has repeatedly been informed that his allegations against Barrister Y are serious and have been made without substance. Dr Chen has told the Commission repeatedly and from as early as 2022 that he is also pursuing Barrister Y through other avenues outside of the Commission. At the interlocutory hearing, I asked Dr Chen what had changed which would render Barrister Y's inclusion in the proceedings now appropriate. In answer, Dr Chen gave nebulous equivocal submissions to the effect that he had been encouraged to pursue his grievances with Barrister Y by two informed members of the public. That is not a satisfactory ground upon which to continue to pursue allegations against Barrister Y by way of the issue of an attendance notice. [69] Pursuant to r 61 of the Rules, the attendance notices issued to Barrister Y and Solicitor Z are set aside. 22 Barrister Y's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 13 February 2026 [2]. 23 Grove v Simon Dirk Kenworthy-Groen as administrator of the estate of William Grove [2021] WASC 374 [3] ('Grove'). -- 13 of 14 -- 14 Orders [70] I make the following orders: 1. Pursuant to r 61 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Rules'), the attendance notices issued to Mr Potts; Dr Forbes; Associate Professor Buckmaster; Barrister Y and Solicitor Z are set aside. 2. The request to set aside the attendance notices issued to Dr Batra and Dr Jayasinghe is dismissed. -- 14 of 14 --