human rights case notes

The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision to suspend them without remuneration, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the the Decision-Maker erred in applying s 58(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and also contravened s 58(1)(b).

The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision to suspend them without remuneration, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the the Decision-Maker erred in applying s 58(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and also contravened s 58(1)(b).

This case concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for HAC: at [1]. On the same day the application was made, an application was also made for an interim order seeking the appointment of an administrator and guardian for HAC on the basis of allegations of neglect of HAC’s care and exploitation of her property, though no evidence was tendered in support of these allegations: at [4]–[5].
In refusing to make the interim order, A/Senior Member Traves held that the appointment of a guardian and administrator on an interim basis was a serious incursion on HAC’s human rights, and that there were no reasonable grounds for making the order: at [14]–[15].

This matter concerned an application to stay the operation of the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ decision to immediately suspend the applicant’s driver authorisation number as a result of him being charged with domestic violence offences.

The case concerned an appeal against a decision to suspend the Appellant’s employment as a health service employee without remuneration due to her inability to comply with Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 which required her vaccination against COVID-19.

The case concerned an application to review a contact decision. The Tribunal determined that MKD was not a parent or a member of the children’s family, so he had no standing to bring an application to review that decision and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the application.

The appellant in this case had sought an exemption to mandatory vaccination requirements on the basis of exceptional circumstances. These circumstances included concerns regarding a lack of consultation, safety, and efficacy of the vaccine, and the incursion upon the appellant’s human rights. The appellant asserted that mandatory vaccinations were a breach of section 17 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which provided the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

This case concerned proceedings relating to a challenge of a decision made by the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner to not accept a complaint made by the applicant. Martin SJA ordered the application to be adjourned to a date to be fixed and a contradictor to be appointed to assist the Court in dealing with the matter.

The matter concerned the appeal of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the appellant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination. The appellant submitted he was exempt from the obligation based on a genuinely held religious belief however did not expressly refer to his rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerns an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made with respect to the appellant’s fixed term temporary employment status and consideration of conversion to permanent employment. In order to consider the appeal, it was necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act 2008 and Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment, the latter of which included a reference to the requirement imposed by section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 which requires decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights. However, there was no consideration of human rights made by the Commission.