Costello v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2025] QIRC 93 involved an application by Ms Costello to review decisions by Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) not to convert her employment from a series of fixed term and casual appointments to a time position.  Unfortunately, Ms Costello was defeated by the passage of time and subsequent events rather than any decision on the merits of her claim.

The decision not to offer Ms Costello permanent employment was made on 28 June 2023.  On 19 July 2023 she lodged an appeal with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. Orders were made requiring the parties to make written submissions and these were received by 19 October 2023.  There was then some correspondence with the Union advising the Commission when new industrial officers had been appointed with the management of the matter on Ms Costello’s behalf.  But nothing further happened until Commissioner Dwyer undertook a review an audit of matters that had been allocated to him. Noting that the matter had been waiting for 12 months he called the matter on for mention ([2]-[6]).  At [5] Dwyer IC said:

Given that Ms Costello is a temporary employee entitled to a review of her employment status every 12 months I was concerned that, given the time elapsed, Ms Costello may have had the benefit of a subsequent review of her employment status. If she had, I was concerned that the utility in dealing with the appeal may have been diminished.

In fact she had had a subsequent review, on 17 April, when it was determined she no longer met the eligibility requirements for permanent appointment ([6]).  For reasons not explained, Ms Costello did not seek to appeal from that decision of 17 April. At [39]-[40] Dwyer IC said:

Nothing in the material filed by Ms Costello … offers any insight into whether this was a deliberate choice, or whether it was a product of some impediment or error. In the absence of any submission, I can only infer that Ms Costello elected not to appeal. In any event, the reason for the failure to appeal is largely irrelevant.

While one might speculate that Ms Costello perhaps considered her appeal against the 2023 status review decision was sufficient notice to the respondent that she intended to challenge her non-conversion more generally, such thinking would be misconceived in circumstances where each status review is independent and determined on the relevant contemporary circumstances. Additionally, any presumption that an appeal against an earlier decision might serve a dual purpose with respect to subsequent conversion decisions is fraught with problems. The jurisdiction of the Commission to conduct a review is limited to a single decision.

The legal effect was that the decision of 17 April overtook the decision of 19 July so there was no longer any value in considering the appeal.

With respect to the delay in dealing with the matter Dwyer IC said (at [14]-[16]):

There is little utility in dissecting the cause of the delay though, for transparency, it ought to be noted that a key factor includes a brief period of administrative disruption in my Chambers that immediately followed the Christmas closure. But another contributing factor might fairly be said to be the failure of Ms Costello’s union representatives to monitor the progress of her appeal and to make enquires (as they were entitled to do) about the timing for the delivery of a decision…

While I am content to accept the Commission should ideally have dealt with the matter sooner, I have no doubt the multiple changes in personnel at the union who had carriage of Ms Costello’s appeal has also contributed to this unfortunate situation to some extent.  

And at [18] he said ‘As blameless as Ms Costello might be in all of this, the delay that has occurred has given rise to a serious question as to the practical utility of dealing with the appeal.

Conclusion

In the circumstances Dwyer IC exercised his discretion and refused to hear the appeal from the decision of June 2023 because it was no longer the effective decision. And there being no appeal from the decision of April 2024 there was nothing for the Tribunal to review.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.