Chistoffel v Pickerings Auto Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QIRC 192

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Chistoffel v Pickerings Auto Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QIRC 192 PARTIES: Christoffel, Jago (Complainant) v Pickerings Auto Group Pty Ltd (First Respondent) & Esterhuizen, Fred (Second Respondent) & Haug, Tammy (Third Respondent) CASE NO: AD/2025/4 PROCEEDING: Referral of a complaint DELIVERED ON: 24 July 2025 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Dwyer IC Brisbane ORDER: Pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), matter number AD/2025/4 is dismissed CATCHWORDS: HUMAN RIGHTS –– DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – QUEENSLAND – possible jurisdictional challenge – matter listed for mention – failure of complainant to attend mention – complainant put on notice that proceedings will be dismissed if further failure to comply without -- 1 of 5 -- 2 reasonable excuse – further mention listed – further failure of complainant to attend – proceedings dismissed LEGISLATION: APPEARANCES: Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 138, 175 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 45 No appearance for the Complainant C. Mossman, Solicitor, Wotton Kearney, for the Respondents Reasons for Decision ex tempore [1] Mr Jago Christoffel filed a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission ('QHRC') on 30 October 2023. The complaint related to alleged sexual harassment said to have occurred in 2018. [2] The complaint referral is significantly lacking in relevant particulars and notably, was filed at least four years past the expiration of the 12-month statutory time limit for the filing of such complaints. The matter was accepted by the QHRC and was subsequently referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') on 14 February 2025.1 The file was allocated to me and a conciliation conference was held on the 29 April 2025. [3] The matter did not resolve at the conciliation conference and the respondents (through their solicitors at that time) indicated an intention to object to the complaint being dealt with on the basis that it was out of time. [4] On 13 May 2025 the respondents (through their then solicitors) filed an application seeking to have the complaint dismissed pursuant to the discretion afforded by section 175 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the AD Act’) (‘the application to dismiss’). [5] On 27 May 2025 Mr Christoffel purported to reply to the application to dismiss by emailing the Industrial Registry. His email cites various technical problems with filing a response and then proceeds to submit that the application to dismiss should be denied essentially, he says, because the respondent had not informed him of his workplace rights. 1 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 138. Note that, while the QHRC was prepared to accept the complaint, the Commission is not bound by their decision and can revisit such controversies upon referral (see s 175 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)). -- 2 of 5 -- 3 [6] Additionally, as part of his explanation for the extensive delay, Mr Christoffel contended that he was unaware he could make such complaint at the relevant time and that his awareness arose after publicity surrounding complaints covered by the media involving Ms Brittany Higgins and the ‘Me Too’ movement generally. [7] Given the paucity of information contained in the email of 27 May 2025, directions were issued on 29 May 2025 requiring Mr Christoffel to file submissions and statements of evidence in response to the application to dismiss. He was required to do this by 4:00 pm on 23 June 2025. [8] On 23 June 2025 at 10.56 am, Mr Christoffel emailed the Industrial Registry seeking an extension of one month to comply with the directions. Mr Chistoffel provided the following grounds for his request: a. he had been very ill and spent significant time in hospital;2 b. he was awaiting various documents from the Queensland Police Service; and c. he was awaiting responses from various lawyers, both those who had previously acted for him and, others who he was now seeking advice from. [9] The disparate and rather desperate sounding grounds of Mr Christoffel’s request for an extension caused me to consider a cautious approach to setting further deadlines for him to comply with. On 1 July 2025, having not received any objection from the respondents to Mr Christoffel’s request for an extension, I indicated to the parties via email that I intended to place the matter in an indefinite abeyance subject to Mr Christoffel indicating he was ready to proceed. [10] I should note as an aside it appears that, at some time between 27 May and 1 July 2025, the respondents were in the process of changing solicitors. This most likely explains why there was no response from them when Mr Christoffel’s request for an extension was made. [11] On 4 July 2025 the respondent’s new solicitors contacted the Industrial Registry by email objecting to the further delay sought by Mr Christoffel. In circumstances where the complaint was significantly out of time, the objection to a further delay (in my view) had merit and required the Commission to hear further from the parties in relation to Mr Christoffel’s request for a one-month extension. [12] Consequently, the matter was listed for mention on 14 July 2025 to hear further from each party on the issue of the extension and additionally, any prejudice to the respondents regarding further delay. 2 The email was not accompanied by any medical evidence to verify or further explain this statement. -- 3 of 5 -- 4 [13] Despite a listing notice being emailed to Mr Christoffel he did not attend the mention on 14 July 2025. Further, when his absence was established, he could not be raised by telephone when attempts were made. Consequently, the matter was adjourned and further listed for mention on 24 July 2025. [14] Like the previous listing notice, the listing notice for the mention on 24 July 2025 was sent to the nominated email address of Mr Christoffel that is contained in the QHRC referral documentation. Additionally, that is the same email address that Mr Christoffel has been using most recently to communicate with the Commission. Importantly, the listing notice for the mention scheduled for 24 July 2025 contained a warning that a failure to attend the mention could result in this matter being dismissed. [15] On 24 July 2025 Mr Christoffel failed to attend the mention and could not be raised by telephone. A review of the email correspondence on the file reveals that Mr Christoffel also failed to advise in advance of any reason why he could not attend. Relevant Law [16] Rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) (‘the Rules’) provides the Commission with the discretion to dismiss a proceeding where a party fails to comply with a direction or order: 45 Failure to attend or to comply with directions order (1) This rule applies if— (a) a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar stating a time, date and place for a hearing or conference for the proceeding; and (b) the party fails to attend the hearing or conference. (2) This rule also applies if— (a) a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar; and (b) the party fails to comply with the order. (3) The court, commission or registrar may— (a) dismiss the proceeding; or (b) make a further directions order; or (c) make another order dealing with the proceeding that the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate, including, for example, a final order; or (d) make orders under paragraphs (b) and (c). -- 4 of 5 -- 5 (Emphasis added) Consideration [17] Mr Christoffel has failed to comply with: • a direction to attend the mention on 14 July 2025; and • a direction to attend a mention today on 24 July 2025. [18] In my view, Mr Christoffel’s complaint is now liable to be dismissed. His failure to attend the mentions without any evidence of a reasonable excuse is unacceptable. [19] In circumstances where Mr Christoffel already faces the barrier of a challenge to his complaint due to a considerable delay in starting proceedings, his current dilatory and recalcitrant conduct means he should forfeit his rights to press the matter further. [20] In all of those circumstances, I order that matter AD/2025/4 be dismissed. Order Pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), matter number AD/2025/4 is dismissed. -- 5 of 5 --