A former Senior Social Worker at a Queensland state high school will face external lawyers in her discrimination claim against the Department of Education. Deputy President Hartigan of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission granted the Department, and an individual joined as second respondent, leave (permission) to be legally represented, including by counsel. The worker is now self-represented.
The worker joined the Department in about August 2022. She resigned with effect from 2 February 2026. She has a son with disabilities and says she is his primary carer and support person. On 10 July 2025 she lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission, which accepted it under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) as alleging discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities and association with a person with that attribute. It also alleged unlawful requests for information and limits on her rights to recognition and equality before the law, and to privacy and reputation, under the Human Rights Act. At her request the complaint was referred to the QIRC, which received it on 30 June 2026.
The respondents applied on 24 July 2026, supported by an affidavit from a MinterEllison solicitor. No conciliation conference had yet been listed. The worker filed a notice withdrawing her own lawyer on 5 August 2026 and filed her objection on 13 August 2026. The application was decided on the papers (on the written material, without a hearing).
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.
The respondents relied on all three grounds. Under s 530(5), as set out in Sillay v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] ICQ 16, which the decision quoted, a lawyer employed by the State may appear for it without leave. The leave sought therefore concerned representation by external lawyers.
that the matter raised complex questions of both fact and law, that the complaint lacked clarity about which acts were said to breach the legislation, and that the allegations were of “significant gravity” for the individual respondent and the Department. They said the individual respondent has no legal experience and would otherwise have to run his own case while giving evidence.
that the issues were not complicated, that “family responsibilities” and association with a person with an impairment are “well established” concepts, and that the Department has substantial in-house human resources and employee relations staff. She argued the grant would create procedural unfairness and “compromise a level playing field between the parties” in a lay jurisdiction. Her affidavit said she has little money to pay for private lawyers.
that all three grounds were made out. The claim raises comparators, the tests for direct and indirect discrimination, statutory exemptions, unlawful requests for information, vicarious liability (an employer’s liability for the conduct of its employee) and human rights limitations. That complexity, even at a preliminary stage, “extends beyond a simple factual dispute”.
On the complexity ground, the Deputy President said the Commission being well equipped to decide the issues “is not the question presently before me”. The test is whether lawyers would let the matter run more efficiently. The decision noted an inconsistency: the QHRC framed the association claim around family responsibilities, but the parties appear to understand it as association with a person with an impairment. Statements of facts and contentions have not yet been filed.
On fairness, the Deputy President addressed the worker’s objection directly: “I do not accept that the accessibility of justice through the Commission is compromised because one party is legally represented.” Any imbalance, the decision said, can be managed through the Commission’s own case and courtroom management. It applied Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 079, where the Commission held that a party’s decision not to use lawyers did not mean the other side should be denied them.
At a glance
- Parties: A former Senior Social Worker v State of Queensland (Department of Education) and an individual second respondent
- Citation: [2026] QIRC 317, delivered 7 October 2026
- Member: Deputy President Hartigan
- Section: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 530(1)(c) and s 530(4)(a), (b) and (c)
- Outcome: Leave granted for the respondents to be legally represented
- Who it affects: Parties to Anti-Discrimination Act complaints referred to the QIRC
The decision was delivered on 7 October 2026. The substantive complaint has not been heard. Under s 530(1)(c), lawyers may appear in Anti-Discrimination Act proceedings before the Commission, other than the full bench, only with leave. In this case, the complainant’s self-representation and limited means did not prevent the grant of leave once the s 530(4) grounds were found to be made out.
Source: [2026] QIRC 317
General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.