Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 352

Date: 12 September 2022
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Industrial Commissioner McLennan
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 25
Rights Considered: Right to privacy and reputation
Other Legislation: Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 7, 10, 14, 15, 118
Keywords: Discrimination; Civil Procedure; Privacy and Confidentiality

McLennan IC considered interference with the complainant's right to privacy and confidentiality under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified when granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.

The case concerned an application by the respondent to seek leave to either call or cross-examine a number of witnesses during the reopened hearing and adduce further evidence: at [11]. The first issue for determination was whether leave should be granted. The second issue was the scope of matters that those witnesses will be limited to giving evidence about during the reopened hearing: at [14]. The application was granted in part and the witnesses were limited in the matters that they could give evidence about. The substantive proceeding concerned an allegation that the Second Respondent sexually harassed and discriminated the complainant on the ground of her sex contrary to ss 7(a), 10, 15 and 118 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

With regard to the evidence of Dr Morris, the parties contest the application of s 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Whilst the respondent contends that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) has no application: at [88], the complainant argues that the requirement to be examined against her own will is contrary to her rights pursuant to s 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The commissioner ultimately granted leave to the respondents to call Dr Morris as a witness in the reopened hearing: at [90], limiting, however, the extent of evidence that may be heard from Dr Morris confined to his affidavit with reference to his report and establishing the factual basis for his opinions: at [97].

In making the decision, McLennan IC considered the right to privacy and confidentiality under section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in view of the fact that disclosure of documents interfered with the ‘privacy, family, home or reputation’ of the complainant. However, this interference was justified in the ‘interests of justice’: at [90].

Visit the judgment: Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 352