The State of Queensland has been refused $9,902.75 in costs against a former employee who lost an appeal in a discrimination matter. Justice Davis, President of the Industrial Court of Queensland, declined to make a costs order on 19 October 2026 in [2026] ICQ 021. The application was determined on the papers, without an oral hearing.
The appeal arose from a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), first lodged with the Queensland Human Rights Commission on 6 December 2021 and later referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The Commission refused the worker’s bid to amend the complaint with six additional claims. She appealed that refusal, and the appeal was dismissed. Justice Davis noted the worker regards her discrimination compensation claims as valid, and said: “No court or tribunal has found to the contrary.”
Under the costs regime in the Industrial Relations Act 2016, s.545 provides that each party bears its own costs, subject to limited exceptions. Section 548 applies the costs provisions in schedule 2 to anti-discrimination proceedings and appeals from them. Item 4 of schedule 2 allows an order where “the interests of justice require it”, and lists the financial circumstances of the parties as one relevant factor.
The State sought $9,902.75, which it said was two-thirds of its actual costs of $15,004.16 excluding GST. It submitted the appeal was misconceived and that continuing with a fourth ground, added during the hearing, required an additional written response. The worker, who represented herself, submitted that the fourth ground was raised by the court and added with leave and without opposition, and that the appeal raised genuine legal questions.
Justice Davis found that the worker “did her best to run the appeal efficiently”. He also found that by continuing with the fourth ground after its difficulties were identified, “she put the respondent to inconvenience and expense”. But for her evidence, he said, he would have ordered her to pay 25 per cent of the State’s total costs. Her evidence about her health and financial position was not challenged, and he drew the inference that “any award of costs against her is likely to cause financial hardship”. He concluded the interests of justice did not require a costs order.
The decision applies the schedule 2 interests-of-justice test to a self-represented party’s appeal. The court gave the worker’s financial circumstances greater weight than its finding that she had caused the State additional expense.
Source: [2026] ICQ 21
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.