The Commission refused to reopen anti-discrimination proceedings that had been dismissed for the complainant's failure to attend directed mentions. The complainant's explanation — that CCC seizure of devices and an alleged police direction not to access his personal email prevented him receiving listing notices — was rejected on the basis that devices were returned within 48 hours, the alleged police direction was uncorroborated hearsay, and the complainant inexplicably nominated the allegedly inaccessible email as his address for service the day after the alleged direction. The Commission emphasised that a litigant bears personal responsibility for remaining contactable and that reopening dismissed proceedings requires compelling reasons supported by evidence, not bare assertions. The Commission also noted in obiter that the complaint faced significant jurisdictional difficulties regarding whether an elected mayor's complaint constitutes a 'work-related matter' under Division 4, Chapter 7 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
The full text is available to signed-in members.