AB v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2025] QIRC 212

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: AB v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2025] QIRC 212 PARTIES: AB (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent) CASE NO: WC/2024/106 PROCEEDING: Application in existing proceedings DELIVERED ON: 11 August 2025 HEARING DATE: 11 August 2025 MEMBER: Pidgeon IC ORDERS: 1. That [2025] QIRC 113 be amended to remove the Appellant's name, role or position and the region in which he was working. 2. That when this ex tempore decision is released, it de-identify the Appellant. CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – NON-PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – consideration of circumstances where the Commission may exercise discretion to modify a previously published decision – where the Commission LEGISLATION: Industrial Relations Act 2016 s 451 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 r 97 CASES: Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263 APPEARANCES: AB, the Appellant, on his own behalf -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Reasons for Decision ex tempore Introduction [1] Following the release of my decision AB v Workers' Compensation Regulator on 8 May 2025, the Appellant has filed an application in existing proceedings for the suppression of certain identifying information: his full name, his job title which clearly links to his identity, and references to the Queensland South district in which he was employed. [2] The Appellant says that since publication, he has experienced a relapse of a diagnosed mental health disorder and that he is currently under the care of a general practitioner and psychologist. [3] The Appellant's General Practitioner, Dr Phyo KoKo wrote to the Commission on 5 August 2025 stating that after the publication of the decision dealing with his application for non-party disclosure of certain documents, he 'has re-presented with marked symptoms of heightened anxiety, panic episodes, insomnia and low mood'. [4] Dr Phyo KoKo says that in his clinical opinion, '…the original work-related issues and associated proceedings are most likely the primary contributing factors to the Appellant's recent deterioration in mental health'. Dr Phyo KoKo has also recently referred the Appellant for psychiatric and psychological support. [5] The Appellant's application states that he only seeks the order to remove the identifying details for the purposes of the non-party disclosure decision and not the judgment of the Commission in relation to the outcome of the eventual appeals hearing. [6] The Appellant submits that: The published decision…grants a procedural application for a Notice of Non-Party Disclosure pursuant to Chapter 7, Part 3 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. The decision does not contain findings or conclusions on the merits of the appellant's case, nor is the appellant's identity necessary to understand the legal reasoning or outcome. The appellant's name and job title appear in the published decision, but their inclusion is not essential to the public record. Redacting these identifiers would not impede public access to the rationale or implications of the Commission's order. In contrast, continued publication in its current form will continue to cause the appellant mental health harm, medically documented by their treating health professionals. [7] The Appellant says that the redaction of the identifying information is a 'proportionate and justified response to balance the appellant's right to psychological safety with the principle of open justice'. Legal framework [8] The onus of demonstrating that circumstances exist which justify a suppression order lies with the party seeking suppression. [9] The general powers of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission are outlined in s 451 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') which relevantly states: -- 2 of 4 -- 3 451 General powers (1) The commission has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the commission in proceedings may— … (c) make an order it considers appropriate. [10] Rule 97(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Rules') provides the Commission with a power to de-identify decisions and redact information from decisions where it is considered appropriate and the modifications will not affect the essence of the document. Consideration [11] I acknowledge, as set out by Vice-President O'Connor in Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd ('ARBTU v Aurizon'), that the starting point in considering any application of this nature is the fundamental principle of open justice.1 However, as His Honour notes, there are statutory exceptions which give rise to a power to exercise a discretion to anonymise a decision in particular circumstances.2 [12] The Appellant is a self-represented person who is appealing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator to reject his application for compensation for a psychiatric injury which he says results from workplace bullying. The Appellant is not applying, in this application, to anonymise or suppress any ultimate decision the Commission makes regarding his Appeal. I will not be the decision-maker considering that appeal and so I am not concerned that any decision I make regarding the application to anonymise this interlocutory decision will impact on the publication of that decision. [13] The Appellant has provided recent information from his doctor stating that he has re- presented with marked symptoms of psychological distress and that the ongoing proceedings are the most likely primary contributing factor to his recent mental health deterioration. [14] The information the Appellant seeks to have removed from the interlocutory decision will not impact the availability of the decision to those who wish to understand the basis upon which I ordered disclosure of documents, and for that matter, refused to order the disclosure of other documents. [15] The Non-Party and the Workers' Compensation Regulator have been provided with an opportunity to make submissions and were invited to attend an oral hearing of the matter this afternoon. No submissions have been received by any party other than the Appellant. [16] The Appellant provided further oral submissions in support of his application at the hearing this afternoon. I will not set those submissions out in these reasons for decision as they largely repeated and reiterated the information contained in his written 1 [2021] QIRC 263 ('ARBTU v Aurizon') [40]. 2 Ibid [42]-[44]. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 submissions and the attached information from his General Practitioner. The Appellant indicated that he could also provide a psychiatrist's report, but that he thought doing so would exceed the page limit for submissions. I do not require that report to be submitted. [17] In the circumstances, in order to avoid further immediate impacts on the Appellant's mental health, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion to de-identify the decision [2024] QIRC 106 in the terms sought by the Appellant. [18] I will also order that this decision I am giving today on the application to de-identify the decision be likewise de-identified. Orders [19] I make the following orders: 1. That [2025] QIRC 113 be amended to remove the Appellant's name, role or position and the region in which he was working. 2. That when this ex tempore decision is released, it de-identify the Appellant. -- 4 of 4 --