Legal Aid lawyer left to foot $40k bill after dropped discrimination case

Legal Aid Queensland and the other three respondents initially objected to the discontinuance so they could pursue costs, having submitted that they spent a total of $371,000 on representation. Mohr-Edgar’s costs order was then made a condition of the withdrawal.

On appeal before the Industrial Court of Queensland, Mohr-Edgar said the costs order should not have been made a condition of the discontinuance or, in the alternative, it was “manifestly excessive”.

Mohr-Edgar advanced 13 grounds of appeal, including that the commissioner erred in law by acting on the wrong principle, gave no or insufficient weight to the actions of the respondents, and gave no or insufficient weight to the actions of the respondents’ lawyers.

Justice Peter Davis, president of the Industrial Court, found none of the grounds was successful and dismissed the appeal.

Mohr-Edgar, who was employed as a lawyer within Legal Aid’s family law services directorate, alleged she was discriminated against and treated less favourably as a result of her having anxiety.

This included an alleged condition on a promotion that the successful applicant not have anxiety, or at least should not experience anxiety about interactions with people who were aggressive with them.

VIEW ALL

There were also several allegations of indirect discrimination and victimisation, including a claim she overheard two employees discuss her transfer out of the family law services. These employees submitted that the transfer discussion was in relation to a client file.

Citation: Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland & Ors [2026] ICQ 002.