human rights case notes

The Applicant brought a claim against the Respondent Council and alleged that the Council had indirectly discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities in not providing sufficient car parking arrangements. The Tribunal determined that the Council’s term requiring people using the car park to park in accordance with regulated signage was reasonable in all the circumstances, such that there had been no indirect discrimination.

The case concerned a decision to substantiate an allegation by the Respondent against the Applicant in circumstances where the Applicant was a Queensland Health employee and had contravened a direction to provide evidence of her COVID-19 vaccination.

This matter concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as Guardian and Administrator respectively for MGT, in circumstances where the Public Guardian had made the accommodation decision to remove MGT from his mother’s (BC) place of residence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in acknowledging that certain fundamental human rights exist, irrespective of capacity.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.

Mr Adrian McIver (the appellant), an Information Technology Officer, appealed against the respondent’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a COVID-19 vaccination directive.

This case concerned an appeal of a Tribunal decision that found a signatory personally liable for fees under a client agreement. The applicant complained that there was a breach of natural justice in the making of the initial decision.

This case concerned an application for reopening a previous Tribunal matter in circumstances where the Applicant did not attend the hearing in question. The Tribunal referred to s 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) where it was considered that it is the human right of an individual to have a civil proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or Tribunal after a fair hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination, inter alia, on the basis of an unreasonable limitation of the right to recognition and equality before the law pursuant to section 15 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The commission never addresses this contention further.

This case arose under an application for the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland to be appointed as Guardian and Administrator respectively for the adult. The Tribunal noted in its reasoning that the case was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that appointment of guardians and administrators impose limitations on human rights.

The plaintiff sought various forms of substantive relief on the basis of human rights, however the Court considered that this was based on a “fundamental misconstruction” of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and did not consider it necessary to deal with such submissions. As such, there was no substantive consideration of human rights by the Court.