Thread by @ExposingNV

🧵🧵
1. WOW. Just WOW!

Lawyer for anti-lockdown group Reignite Democracy has been hit with a personal costs order for his conduct in an unfair dismissal case.

The Commissioner's decision is SCATHING!

2. "The submissions were, in simple terms, woefully incompetent"

"The submissions filed were so deficient & misconceived that, if the matter proceeded further, the Commission was very much open to a personal costs order against [Mr. Rogers]"

3. "When the Commission began to put Mr Rogers on notice of these matters, he abruptly interjected & said:

'That's never going to happen. I won't be paying those costs & we'll simply appeal. If you don't want to do your job, we'll get someone else to do it'

4. "What is now also known is that, not only did Mr Rogers expressly seek a hearing, but he did so without informed instructions from his client.

It is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances more deserving of a costs order"

5. "Ms Dorman unfortunately selected representatives who were incompetent and who appeared to be
motivated by a desire to promote their own quasi-political agenda"

6. "Where it is apparent that incompetent representation serves to impede a party from acquiring an understanding that their application has no reasonable prospect of success, then s 545(2)(a)(ii) of the IR Act cannot be engaged.

That has been the case here".

7. "The submission filed by Mr Rogers were utterly unresponsive to the matters raised by the Commission & the Respondent. Even if they were sent to Ms Dorman, nothing about those submissions would give her any cause to understand the peril her matter was in..."

8. "Throughout this entire matter, Ms Dorman was deprived of competent representation. Worse still...it appears that Ms Dorman's distress & confusion at losing her job was exploited by Ms Misko & later by Mr Rogers purely to press their personal (misconceived) views about (cont)

9. "vaccines and mandates. Ms Dorman was barely consulted by Mr Rogers once the proceedings were
filed and certainly not at all at the critical junctures"

10. "The many failings of Mr Rogers as a representative are set out above & do not require repeating. Mr Rogers failed on almost every occasion to comply with directions issued by the Commission. There were repeated listings necessitated to address his delinquency. But (cont)

11. "even when confronted with his transgressions, Mr Rogers made no efforts to rectify his conduct. To the extent that Mr Rogers might have uttered anything resembling an apology at any point, the Commission never had the impression it was genuine".

12. "So frequent was Mr Rogers' non-compliance with directions orders that the Commission
has been left in no doubt that his conduct was not merely a feature of incompetence. The
dismissive & casual tones routinely adopted by Mr Rogers gave a clear impression of (cont)

13. "disdain for the Commission. It was plainly and exclusively the conduct of Mr Rogers that caused the Respondent to incur costs unnecessarily in responding to Ms Dorman's application".

14. "Following the mention on 15 November 2022 where Mr Rogers was directly informed by the Commission that the submissions filed were incompetent and that he was at risk of a personal costs order, the bare minimum one would expect of Mr Rogers as a
representative is that (cont)

15. "he would consult Ms Dorman about these and obtain her instructions about the progress of the matter. Mr Rogers did nothing of the sort".

16. "The best effort Mr Rogers made was to send Ms Dorman a copy of his incompetent and nonsensical submission, without any explanation as to what it purported (but failed) to address. A more unreasonable omission by a representative would be hard to imagine".

17. "The failures by Mr Rogers to act on the cautions that were issued to him (twice) by the Commission or to communicate those matters to Ms Dorman are, alone, enough to warrant a costs order.

Unfortunately, they are just the beginning".

18. "Mr Rogers' request for a hearing...was made at a time when he had not had any contact with Ms Dorman for at least three weeks & the contact he did have (if any) was ineffective. Mr Rogers requested the matter be listed for hearing without obtaining any (cont)

19. "proper instruction from Ms Dorman who was, at the time, completely oblivious to the existence of the preliminary issues to be addressed. Mr Rogers had the matter set down because it was HIS preference".

20. "In his own words, without a hint of contrition or embarrassment, Mr Rogers casually asserts that the sudden request to discontinue was because he did not begin his preparation until Friday afternoon before the hearing which, by coincidence, was immediately after (cont)

21. "he received an email from the Industrial Registry advising, contrary to his proposal, that Ms Dorman would be required to attend the hearing.

One can only presume Mr Rogers 'preparation' involved reading the Respondent's submissions for the first time that afternoon..."

22. "The failure to adequately prepare for a hearing in a timely manner by any representative, let alone a legal practitioner, is inexcusable and plainly an unreasonable act or omission"

23. "Considered in isolation, it is tempting to consider that Mr Rogers' conduct only rises to the level of gross incompetence. But in the broader context of the matter, it is not difficult to conclude from his consistently disrespectful attitude, that (cont)

24. "Mr Rogers was wilfully ignorant of the objections and concerns raised by the Respondent and the Commission.

He did not know, and more importantly, he did not care to know."

25. "Mr Rogers' contemptuous disregard for the cautions offered by the Commission....plainly demonstrates the causal link between his unreasonable conduct and the costs incurred by the Respondent".

26. "As a consequence of the litany of unreasonable acts & omissions of Mr Rogers, he has personally caused the Respondent to incur numerous costs.There
could be few clearer factual scenarios warranting the exercise of the IRC's discretion to impose a personal costs order on him"

27. "Mr Rogers' excuse for not concluding the 'in principle' agreement is as implausible as it is nonsensical".

28. "In the circumstances the Commission considers it appropriate that Mr Rogers pay the Respondent's costs incurred during the period 4 November 2022 to 30 January 2023 being a total amount of $9,062.00".

29. "The foregoing reasons catalogue a range of conduct by Mr Rogers that, in the view of the Commission, raise serious questions about his suitability to practice".

30. "There is at least one incident of explicitly contemptuous conduct by Mr Rogers in addition to his consistent display of disrespectful behaviour towards the Commission both in his demeanour and his repeated non-compliance with directions orders".

31. "Throughout the proceedings the
Commission had the impression that Mr Rogers' personal views were at the forefront of his representation, and his professional duties to the Commission and his client were secondary".

32. "It ought to be made clear that Mr Rogers is entirely free to hold & exercise his social & political views. But such freedom does not extend to Mr Rogers using clients as a mere vehicle to promote those views before a court or tribunal under the guise of (cont)

33. legal proceedings. It was immediately apparent that the extensive (but incompetent) submissions Mr Rogers filed early in these proceedings had the familiar 'anti-vax template' appearance".

34. "When one then considers the complete absence of
meaningful communication between Mr Rogers and Ms Dorman throughout the relevant period, Mr Rogers' conduct as a legal practitioner pressing his misconceived arguments is more than a little concerning".

35. "It is not within the Commission's powers to sanction Mr Rogers for his conduct in these proceedings. However, if Mr Rogers continues to conduct himself in the same manner before other courts or tribunals, then in the Commission's view, he will inevitably bring (cont)

36. the profession into disrepute. More concerningly, his conduct may adversely impact a member or members of the public.

Accordingly, the Commission intends to direct that the Registrar forward a copy of these reasons to the Legal Services Commissioner for her consideration".

37. Link to case: archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2023…