This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of the Queensland as guardian and administrator, respectively, for NHF, revoking a previous Enduring Power of Attorney.
The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. There is considerable litigation history between the parties. This particular case was a remitted hearing following a decision of the High Court in February 2021.
This application concerned the appointment of a guardian and administrator for MXQ, the making of a confidentiality order, and the making of orders limiting information sharing with particular individuals.
This matter concerned an application to appoint a guardian and administrator for MTD under an interim order because of capacity concerns. The Tribunal found that limits on MTD’s freedom of movement (section 19) and right to privacy and reputation (section 25) that would result from an interim order, were not reasonable and justified in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
This matter concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for KAN. KAN had acquired significant disabilities at birth due to hospital negligence and a $5,000,000 compromise settlement of his medical negligence claim had been held and managed by a court-appointed trustee while he was a minor.
The Tribunal was required to consider whether the Applicant’s changed circumstances were sufficient to warrant the case as exceptional such that a negative notice should be issued.
This case concerned an appeal premised on the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt (section 32(2)(k)). After consideration of a number of provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Court ultimately found that the grounds of appeal could not be made out as the limitation imposed upon said rights was justified (section 13).
The case concerned an appeal against the decision of the Noosa Magistrates Court to dismiss the appellant’s application for a protection order and to grant the respondent a protection order.
This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card, following receipt of information that the applicant’s kinship carer certificate had been cancelled following findings that he had failed to protect a child in his care from sexual abuse by an adult member of the household.
