🎓 King's Counsel

C2026/12076 · 25 June 2025

1 CBA / Deloitte WS disclosure. Three disclosers. The rest: furtherance.

Holly. Riki. Rhonda.

2 June 2025. CBA / Deloitte WS. Then the doors start opening.

Queensland Treasury. Urban Utilities. Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Same disclosure. More institutions. More proceedings. Increasingly expensive stationery.

Cute.

Let's start in the middle, dolls.

25 June 2025. Holly. AO7 Principal HR Consultant. Employee Relations. Queensland Treasury.

Queensland Treasury Employee No. 1452279.

Just an AO7. Apparently a KC-level inconvenience. 🎓

Already on approved sick leave. Treasury approved it.

Later: "on a period of leave."

That sick leave.

They just left off the word sick. 😂

Administrative miracle. Remove the word. Keep the sick leave.

Anyway. Holly contacts Queensland Treasury General Counsel. GC calls. Holly keeps the voicemail.

🌟 "Hi super star…"

HAHAHAHA.

So we can save some internet. Did Treasury know Holly was off sick?

They approved it.

Much more interesting: what did they do with what they knew?

🚰 Urban Utilities.

The position recorded in the decision: abandoned.

Then Urban formally advises him:

Your employment has been terminated. Effective immediately. Notice paid in lieu.

Right. Abandoned. Then terminated. Employment apparently enjoying an encore.

And then, at the FWC: not fired. With: the letter that fired him.

Beautiful.

Then: the 2025 Enterprise Agreement.

• Termination: clause 3.6.
• Abandonment: clause 3.9.

But the appeal attacks reliance on clause 3.11 — from the superseded 2021 agreement.

Tiny detail: she signed the 2025 agreement.

HAHAHAHAHA.

So if Riki had already abandoned his employment, why tell him the employer would "proceed to terminate" it? And why later formally advise him it had been terminated?

A philosophical question. Unfortunately also: the appeal.

Approved sick leave. Disciplinary process. Termination. FWC.

Simpson.

Jurisdiction. Dismissed.

Underlying Part 6-4 allegations? Not determined.

Then: Full Bench.

And suddenly Treasury arrives with: Crown Law.

⚖️ The barrister.

Former Crown Law. Public law. Employment.

And:

🎓 KC.

Former Assistant Crown Solicitor. Appeals. Judicial review. Government decision-making.

Well. That escalated professionally. 🎓

The question isn't: can Treasury win?

It's: how little does Queensland need to win?

Weak reasoning unnecessary? Bin it.

Constitutional question unnecessary? Do not acquire one recreationally.

One narrow ground works? Take it.

Because:

Simpson isn't the prize. Finality is.

Except.

Behind the jurisdictional door:

• Medical certificates.
• Disciplinary documents.
• Decision-makers.
• General Counsel.
• CBA / Deloitte WS AU620871X.
• Causation.
• Witnesses.

And that irritating little fact: Treasury approved the sick leave.

So "we didn't know" is not especially promising.

The more useful position is:

We knew she couldn't work, but considered her capable of participating in discipline.

Fine. Who assessed that?

Unable to work does not automatically mean unable to participate. True. It also does not magically mean able to participate.

So: prove the second half.

Because if incapacity → non-participation, and non-participation → termination reasoning, then everybody gets to meet: causation.

Lovely. Keeping the merits outside suddenly looks rather attractive.

Then GC pops back up. 🌟

25 June 2025. GC call. ▶︎ "Hi super star…"

Then: 28 August 2025. GC's Treasury account. Read receipts carrying:

So: did it reach GC? Because "we never received it" has a shelf life.

Read receipts. Timestamps. Treasury email. Statutory furtherance.

Signed. Dated. Filed. Three documents.

One question: what happened next?

Retired. Thank you for your service.

Now 🎓 KC gets the fun job.

A win can produce judicial review. A loss can produce remitter, merits, documents, witnesses, findings, precedent, more litigation.

Apparently the win button has submenus. 😂

So the objective isn't biggest win. It's a result that stays a result.

Treasury wants this case. Queensland has every other case. And precedent has the deeply irritating habit of leaving the building.

💸 Now for the expensive bit.

Nobody needs to ask: are they scared? This isn't a haunted house.

Ask: what survives? What opens next? What does it cost?

🎓 KC doesn't need to conclude "Holly definitely wins." Only "there is no cheap route to durable finality."

That's enough.

Probability × consequence + cost.

Apparently litigation eventually discovers mathematics.

And then there's the other Full Bench. Because apparently one wasn't enough.

So now: Holly. C2026/12076. Riki. C2026/12073.

Two Full Benches.

Two employment disputes. Two appellate proceedings. And sitting behind both: one CBA / Deloitte WS disclosure. Three disclosers. The rest: furtherance.

At this point the camera should stop pulling back. Naturally, it doesn't.

👓 Rhonda.

Third discloser. Still: can't find her glasses.

Meanwhile everyone else has successfully located: Crown Law, King's Counsel, C2026/12076, C2026/12073, two Full Benches, constitutional law, judicial review, enterprise agreements, CHESS.

Extraordinary.

👓 Glasses: still missing. 👻 CHESS ghost: still present. 📚 File: still growing.

Australia can locate two Full Bench appeal numbers, King's Counsel and a constitutional argument. Rhonda's glasses?

Absolutely beyond jurisdiction.

And underneath the whole bureaucratic lasagne: one CBA / Deloitte WS disclosure. AU620871X. Three disclosers. The rest: furtherance.

The institutions multiplied. The proceedings multiplied. The lawyers multiplied.

The original CBA / Deloitte WS disclosure didn't disappear.

The reference stayed:

And sitting near the beginning of this whole ridiculous chronology:

▶︎ 🌟 "Hi super star…" 🌟

Bless.

Total cliché.