She has sought $3.8 million in compensation and damages.

After Benjamin passed the director role back to Hendy following the latter’s leave of absence, there was a “deterioration” in the relationship, during which Benjamin alleged she was denied handover for a new role and access to certain systems required for her work.

Dozens of text messages provided to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission also revealed communication from Benjamin to Hendy was “highly emotional and (at times) passive/aggressive”.

Commission member John Dwyer also found very little in the messages would be “regarded as professional or appropriate exchange for a subordinate employee to have with a supervisor”.

VIEW ALL

Relying on those text messages, the respondents argued Benjamin’s inappropriate workplace conduct brought about “her own demise”.

Before the matter could proceed beyond interlocutory listings, Benjamin made an application to have Dwyer recuse himself on two grounds of actual bias and six grounds of apprehended bias.

Benjamin alleged Dwyer had a “vested interest” in the outcome of the proceedings, particularly because he was “desperate to protect all judicial officers of the Supreme Court at all costs”. However, Dwyer will not play any role in deciding the substantive complaint.

Dwyer also noted that despite “numerous mentions” of the matter since July 2024, Benjamin had not sought an opportunity to raise her objections with the commission until the recusal application.

As a whole, Benjamin contended Dwyer’s words and actions demonstrated bias and went so far as to assert – without evidence – he had a vested interest in protecting the reputations of Hendy, the Parole Board and justices of the Queensland Supreme Court.

Dwyer said this revealed an “ongoing and concerning lack of understanding of her professional duties as a lawyer”, and his only intention has been to protect public confidence in the judiciary against a serious and currently untested allegation.

Moreover, he said there was concern Benjamin that has been affected by a loss of objectivity and has been “at pains” to demonstrate the serious nature of the allegations she has sought to raise.

While Dwyer accepted his language was “ineloquent” at times, he said he did so out of caution following several unnecessary applications. He clarified he made no adverse determination about her conduct in the proceedings and had not admonished her conduct.

“Cautionary cries to a person dancing awkwardly next to a bonfire who displays no insight into the danger will invariably be delivered in a raised voice. But the concern prompting that cry brings an entirely different character to the volume or tone.

“It is clear from the transcript that I was trying to impress upon Benjamin the serious nature of the allegation, and the possible consequences for her,” he said.

One of Benjamin’s more major allegations against the member was that he had made a “veiled threat” that she would be investigated by a regulatory body if she attempted to lift a suppression order covering some of the more scandalous facets of her evidence.

Dwyer explained he was only cautioning her because his reasons would have to be published and made available for public access.

Benjamin also accused Dwyer of raising his voice at her and, in doing so, suggested that the member did so in a hostile manner.

Dwyer explained his initial reaction to Benjamin’s allegation was “a significant amount of incredulity”, which may have caused his language to be more “emphatic”. This, he admitted, may have meant his voice was raised and “it may shaped enunciation”.

Particular offence was taken to Dwyer allegedly shouting at her that Benjamin was “a lawyer”, which she said implied she should know she was contravening the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules.

Dwyer disputed this, explaining he said the words “you’re a lawyer” in response to her submission that she did not “have the benefit of having someone review this material”.

“While not having the benefit of reviewing the audio of the transcript, I am entirely certain my tone was one of shock and incredulity.

“I did not yell. Benjamin’s excuse of being unsupervised when drafting the contentious pleading was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Moreover, in light of my growing concerns, it left me pondering as to exactly how out of her depth Benjamin really was,” Dwyer said.

Dwyer added that she was correct to assume he was implying that, as a lawyer, Benjamin “should plainly understand her professional obligations and duties”. In that context, it was “troubling” that her submissions suggested it was unreasonable for him to expect that.

The member said it was unfortunate Benjamin sought to ventilate her concerns through a recusal application instead of understanding or acting on invitations to raise her objections earlier.

“Instead, when compared to the objective facts laid out in the transcripts, Benjamin’s submissions reveal a sizeable gap between her perceptions of what has occurred and the reality,” he said.

The recusal application was dismissed, and the matter is ongoing.

The case is Benjamin v Sharp & Ors (Recusal) [2025] QIRC 54 (26 February 2025).