🎓 KING'S COUNSEL

Cute.

Because this did not begin at Full Bench.

1 CBA / DELOITTE WS DISCLOSURE.

3 DISCLOSERS.

THE REST: FURTHERANCE.

HOLLY. RIKI. RHONDA.

2 JUNE 2025.

CBA / DELOITTE WS

AU620871X.

Then the doors start opening.

Queensland Treasury.
Urban Utilities.
Commonwealth Ombudsman.
PID-2025-800051.

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.

Already on:

APPROVED SICK LEAVE.

Treasury approved it.

They just left the word:

"SICK"

off.

😂

An administrative miracle.
Remove the word.
Keep the sick leave.

Very efficient.

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?

Yes.

THEY APPROVED IT.

Much more interesting:

WHAT DID THEY DO WITH WHAT THEY KNEW?

MEANWHILE: RIKI.

🚰 URBAN UTILITIES.

The position recorded in the decision:

ABANDONED.

Then Urban Utilities formally advises him his employment:

HAD BEEN TERMINATED.

Effective immediately.
Notice paid in lieu.

Right.

ABANDONED.
THEN TERMINATED.

Employment apparently enjoying an encore.

Then:

THE 2025 ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT.

But the appeal attacks reliance on:

CLAUSE 3.11.

From:

THE SUPERSEDED 2021 AGREEMENT.

And the tiny detail with impeccable timing:

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.

BACK TO HOLLY.

Approved sick leave.
Disciplinary process.
Termination.
FWC.

SIMPSON.

Jurisdiction.
Dismissed.

Underlying Part 6-4 allegations?

NOT DETERMINED.

Then:

FULL BENCH.

C2026/12076.

Holly Tegan Dahm v State of Queensland acting through Queensland Treasury.

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, once again:

TREASURY APPROVED THE SICK LEAVE.

So the useful position isn't:

It's:

Fine.

DID ANYONE ACTUALLY ASSESS THAT?

Because:

True.

But that does not magically prove:

ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.

So:

PROVE THE SECOND HALF.

And if:

then everybody gets to meet:

CAUSATION.

Lovely.

Suddenly keeping the merits outside 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.

And cheerfully ignored.

Three documents.

One question:

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

Retired.
Thank you for your service.

The useful question is:

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

Much better.

NOW 🎓 KC GETS THE FUN JOB.

Even 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.

Because 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:

Only:

That's enough.

Because:

PROBABILITY × CONSEQUENCE + COST.

Apparently litigation eventually discovers mathematics.

AND THEN THERE'S THE OTHER FULL BENCH.

Because apparently:

ONE WASN'T ENOUGH.

C2026/12073.

Riki Lee Dahm v Central SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority t/a Urban Utilities.

So now:

HOLLY.

C2026/12076.

RIKI.

C2026/12073.

TWO FULL BENCHES.

Two employment disputes.
Two appellate proceedings.

And sitting behind both:

1 CBA / DELOITTE WS DISCLOSURE.

AU620871X.

3 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:

1 CBA / DELOITTE WS DISCLOSURE.

AU620871X.

3 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:

AU620871X.

And sitting near the beginning of this whole ridiculous chronology:

▶︎ 🌟 "HI SUPER STAR…" 🌟

Bless.

TOTAL CLICHÉ.