Law School

Human Rights Case Law Project

  1. Home
  2. Research
  3. Vulnerable Persons Project

Published cases referring to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

The UQ/Caxton Human Rights Case Law Project is an initiative of the UQ School of Law and Caxton Legal Centre Inc. The aim of this project is to ensure that practitioners, researchers, students and members of the public have easy access to all published cases that refer to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). 

Case notes for all published decisions that mention the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) will be added to this page. Please be patient with us – we are a small team so the case notes might not appear immediately, but we will do our best to complete them as quickly as possible.

This project is run by Professor Tamara Walsh (UQ Pro Bono Centre) and Bridget Burton (Caxton Legal Centre).

Current team members are: Laura Rowswell (Student Leader), Liisa Kuru (Student Leader), Laura Hall, Kano Nawagawa, Imogen Ryan-Kerr, Emily Gracias, Sarah Millar, Ella North, Elize Atme, Diksha Arora, Ocean Desta-Gebru and Bethany Jones.

Many thanks to our founding members: Elizabeth Aisi, Linden Peacock and Tulli Seton.

Case notes are available by keyword below and in alphabetical order.

Case notes by keyword

Children and Families
Civil Procedure
Commercial
Criminal Law and Corrective Services
Cultural rights
Discrimination
Domestic Violence
Education, Training and Employment
Health, Mental Health and Guardianship
Planning and Environment
Political Freedoms
Privacy and Confidentiality
Public Law Considerations
Tenancy and Social Housing

Children and Families

  • AB v CD [2020] QCAT 295

    The applicant made an application for a minor debt for the collection and recovery of a child support overpayment by one parent to another.

  • ABD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 57

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal stated that it had considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and concluded that its decision did not unreasonably compromise any of the human rights affected.

  • AM v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6

    The Tribunal set aside a decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General and found that the applicant’s case was not ‘exceptional’ in relation to his application for a positive notice for a blue card.

  • AMD v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 4

    This decision concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s human rights, including the right to freedom of expression (section 21) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • Applicant HC v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 325

    This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the Respondent to issue a negative notice to refuse the Applicant’s application for a blue card. Neither the Applicant nor Respondent referred to rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal noted that any limitation on the Applicant’s rights under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) would be justified because it had the purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of young people and children. The Tribunal did not engage in substantive discussion in respect to the Applicant’s human rights.

  • BE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 498

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, BE. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • BJM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 365

    This matter concerned a review of the refusal of an application for a Blue Card by BJM, an individual who had been charged (but not convicted) with sexual assault of a child and investigated for possession of child exploitation material. The Tribunal confirmed human rights may only be limited so far as is reasonable and justifiable (s 13) and outlined that all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights (s 48).

  • BPM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 286

    This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as it was mentioned in submissions, however, did not substantively discuss these rights.

  • CA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2022] QCAT 305

    The case concerned a negative blue card notice to an applicant convicted of assault offences arising from an altercation in March 2019. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant’s case was an exceptional case. The Tribunal acknowledged that the human rights of the applicant to ‘privacy and reputation’, to ‘take part in public life’ and ‘to further vocational education and training’ would be affected by the decision.

  • CA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 452

    ​​​​​​​This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, CA, due to his lengthy criminal history. In conducting its review, Member Fitzpatrick had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

Return to top

Civil Procedure

Pages

Return to top

Commercial

  • Body Corporate for the Lakes-Cairns CTS 28090 v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 39

    The applicant was the principal body corporate for a layered community title scheme comprised of 18 subsidiary body corporates. The respondent was a service contractor under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1999 (Qld).

  • Marino Law v VC ([2021]) QCAT 348

    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.

  • Reef House Property Pty Ltd & Ors v Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation & Anor [2021] QCAT 383

    The applicant sought a stay of a decision from the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation to approve a commercial hotel licence application of MFB Properties (NQ) Pty Ltd for a premises at Palm Cove. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned by the Tribunal, acknowledging that they have taken into account the potential human rights impacted in their decision.

  • Ritson v Ryan [2021] QCATA 100

    This was an appeal relating to a commercial dispute regarding refund fees for a pilot aptitude test: at [6]. The Tribunal ‘had in mind’ the right to a fair hearing both as a matter of procedural fairness and natural justice, and under section 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [98]. The requirement imposed by section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), to only limit this right to the extent that is reasonably justifiable, was noted. However, there was no substantive discussion of human rights by the Tribunal.

  • Tamarin Pty Ltd & Otmoor Pty Ltd as Trustee v Wicks [2021] QCATA 146

    This matter concerned a minor civil dispute claim by a commercial lessor against the directors of the lessee company for various costs including rental arrears. The relevant issue on appeal was whether a decision by an adjudicator not to call for submissions regarding the issue of jurisdiction was a breach of natural justice.

  • Wagners Cement Pty Ltd & Anor v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QSC 124

    The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)), was examined by the court. This arose because there was a possibility that confidential information would be inadvertently disclosed at the conclusion of the trial. The court found it unnecessary to examine this right in depth as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but held that there will be circumstances where justice cannot be served if everything must be done in public.

  • Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor v Heslop & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC 256

    Westpac Bank claimed $329,034.48 from the first defendant (Mr Heslop), who was the guarantor of a debt in this amount. Mr Heslop alleged that Westpac and the second plaintiff (the Receiver) ‘breached Article 12 of the Human Rights Act’.

Return to top

Criminal Law and Corrective Services

  • Attorney-General for QLD v Grant [2022] QSC 180

    The Attorney-General sought a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The Court was required to consider whether a policy of the Queensland Corrective Service in not allowing the provision external support services in precinct housing was compatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haynes [2020] QSC 348

    The Attorney-General applied for a supervision order pursuant to ss 13(5)(b) and 16 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) in relation to the respondent, who was convicted of serious sexual offences. The court noted the respondent’s right to a fair hearing (s 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) when considering the appellant’s submissions, which were not considered further.

  • Attorney-General v Carter [2020] QSC 217

    Pursuant to section 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the Attorney-General applied to the court for either a continuing detention order or a supervision order in relation to the respondent, Carter, who was convicted of serious sexual offences. The court noted that supervision orders limit the right to liberty and freedom of movement contained in sections 29 and 19 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but that they did so to fulfil the statutory purpose of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) relating to  the safety of the community.

  • Baggaley v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] QCA 179

    This case concerned an appeal against a decision of Flanagan J in April 2020 to refuse the appellant’s application for bail. The appellant argued that his detention was arbitrary and unlawful and that he had the right to a trial without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 29(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • Baggaley v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] QCA 179

    This case concerned an appeal against a decision of Flanagan J in April 2020 to refuse the appellant’s application for bail. The appellant argued that his detention was arbitrary and unlawful and that he had the right to a trial without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 29(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • Boyy v Executive Director of Specialist Operations of Queensland Corrective Services [2019] QSC 283

    The right not to be tried or punished more than once (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 34) was argued by the applicant, but not considered by the court.

  • Commissioner of Police v Keating-Jones [2022] QDC 56

    The matter involved a Section 222 Justices Act appeal. The respondent had been charged with dangerously operating a motor vehicle while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and a permanent stay had been granted by the Magistrates Court to avoid abuse of justice that would occur if a further period of mandatory disqualification was imposed for the failure to supply a specimen of breath charge.

  • Crossman v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 122 and 123

    The self-represented applicant appealed against two convictions for driving over the prescribed speed limit, stating that the Magistrates who handed down the convictions had erred with respect to section 35 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which concerns the right to protection against retrospective criminal laws. During oral submissions, the Applicant abandoned this ground of appeal and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was not further mentioned in either of the proceedings.

  • Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v MAP [2022] QCATA 34

    This case concerned an appeal of a previous Tribunal decision to set aside a decision of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to issue a negative blue card notice, and replace it with the decision that the applicant’s case was not an exceptional case. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time of the original proceedings so it did not apply. The matter was returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.

  • Dupois v Queensland Police & Anor [2022] QSC 241

    The case concerned an application for a permanent stay of all the charges faced by the applicant in the Magistrates Court. The applicant broadly contended that he would never be in a position to obtain a fair and impartial hearing as the charges brought against him were fabricated ‘due to a sexual relationship between…[his] former de facto wife…and the arresting officer...’

Pages

Return to top

Cultural rights

  • Bowie v Queensland Police Service and Ors [2022] QLC 8

    The Court dismissed an application for a number of orders under the Land Court Act 2000 (Qld). In doing so, the Court found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had no bearing on the Queensland Police Service’s execution of a lawfully granted warrant of possession.

  • Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14

    The case concerned an application for a mining lease. The Court briefly discussed its obligation to properly consider human rights, although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had commenced after objections had been lodged. The Court then provided an outline of the submissions that the applicants had made on human rights, but did not make any further remarks. The objections were addressed so as not to preclude a grant of the mining lease, but a number of steps still preceded its possible grant.

  • Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21

    The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. The Court provided a detailed consideration of the mine’s human rights impacts through its contribution to climate change, and effect on the surrounding area. The Court ultimately concluded that the limitations to human rights imposed by the mine were unjustifiable.

  • Accoom v Pickering [2020] QSC 388

    This case concerned an application for orders regarding a family dispute over the burial location of a deceased Indigenous man. Justice Henry noted that section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) did not affect the Court’s usual approach to resolving these types of cases as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customs have always been considered.

Return to top

Discrimination

  • Angelopoulos v State of Queensland [2022] QCAT 163

    The case concerned the contention that the respondent had discriminated against the applicant by requiring him to bury his father without a church service or private viewing.

  • BB v State of Queensland & Ors [2020] QCAT 496

    The Tribunal considered whether a school directly discriminated against a student, on the basis of his impairment. The Tribunal noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply in this case as the legislation commenced after the relevant events took place. Nonetheless, it found no evidence to suggest that the student’s human rights had been contravened.

  • Burleigh Town Village Pty Ltd (3) [2022] QCAT 285

    The applicant applied for an exemption pursuant to section 113 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of owning and operating a manufactured home park supplying special accommodation solely for persons aged 50 and older. The Tribunal weighed the application against the infringement of rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and subsequently refused the application.

  • Coonan v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2020] QCAT 434

    This case involved an application for review of a decision made by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to register the parent who gave birth to his child as the child’s ‘mother’, in circumstances where that parent identifies as male. The Tribunal briefly considered the right to recognition and equality before the law, the right to privacy and reputation and the right to protection of families and children (sections 15, 25 and 16 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) but ultimately decided that as the proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), it was not applicable.

  • Dean-Braieoux v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 209

    This case concerned an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made under section 175 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) requiring the applicant to submit to a medical examination.

  • Fernwood Womens Health Clubs (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] QCAT 164

    The applicant sought an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to operate their fitness clubs exclusively for female members, and to be run exclusively by female staff. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in reference to whether granting this exemption placed a reasonable and demonstrably justifiable limit on the right to recognition and equality before the law.

  • Frost v State of Queensland & Ors [2020] QCATA 144

    This case concerned an application for a stay order to be issued in respect of a non-publication order of the Tribunal. Taking into account the respondents’ right to protection of their reputations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal refused the application.

  • Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service & Ors [2020] QIRC 084

    The applicant relied upon the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association contained within section 22 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in seeking declaratory relief against the respondents. There was, however, no in-depth analysis of this provision provided in the Commission’s decision.

  • Gorgievski v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2022] QCAT 365

    This case concerned allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Whilst no particular breach of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was alleged, the Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under sections 4(f) and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and considered itself bound to consider the extent to which the applicant’s human rights were affected by this proceeding.

  • Isles v State of Queensland [2021] QCAT 135

    The applicant applied to the Tribunal claiming that the Queensland Police Service were directly discriminating against him by placing alerts, warnings and flags on his personal profile on their internal database. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was held not to apply as the events in question occurred prior to its commencement. The Tribunal noted that the evidence did not meet the standard required to make any findings of a contravention of human rights.

Pages

Return to top

Domestic violence

  • SH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 293

    This matter concerned an application for review of the decision not to cancel the applicant’s negative notice for a Blue Card. The Tribunal acknowledged it must exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) but considered any limit on the applicant’s rights is justified because it has the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children.

  • Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher NSP [2023] QCAT 105

    The Applicant sought a continued suspension of the Respondent’s teacher registration on the basis that the Respondent posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. In ordering that the Respondent’s submissions against the decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the protection of children generally took precedence over the interests of the teacher.

  • GEE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 260

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, GEE. In weighing the risk and protective factors in consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s prior ten child concern reports for children in her care, her history of domestic violence (as both a protected and respondent person) and limited criminal history, the applicant’s ongoing interpersonal conflict with others and authorities, the circumstances in her home, the lack of independent social supports, and the perceived lack of insight and accountability the applicant had for her own actions related to harm suffered to a child in her care.

  • DLM v WER & The Commissioner of Police [2022] QDC 79

    This case related to a decision concerning applications for protection orders by ex-partners involving their child.

  • AMD v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 4

    This decision concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s human rights, including the right to freedom of expression (section 21) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v MAP [2022] QCATA 34

    This case concerned an appeal of a previous Tribunal decision to set aside a decision of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to issue a negative blue card notice, and replace it with the decision that the applicant’s case was not an exceptional case. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time of the original proceedings so it did not apply. The matter was returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.

  • MAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 527

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MAP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to the duties it imposed upon the Tribunal, and the relevance of the right not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) to the operation of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

  • ED v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 56

    This case concerned an application to review the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant, ED. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned only in reference to the Tribunal being a public entity and therefore obligated to make decisions compatible with human rights under section 58.

  • ABD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 57

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal stated that it had considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and concluded that its decision did not unreasonably compromise any of the human rights affected.

  • DL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General ([2021]) QCAT 61

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the working with children clearance and blue card of the applicant, DL, and to issue a negative notice in its place. This decision meant the applicant could no longer continue to work as a foster carer. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and to take part in public life (section 23), as well as the right to protection of families and children (section 26), and the Tribunal’s own role as a public entity under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). 

Pages

Return to top

Education, Training and Employment

  • Abbott v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 113

    This matter related to a public service appeal for appointment to a high classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in a departmental document tendered in evidence. However, there was no substantive discussion of human rights in the reasons.

  • AM v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6

    The Tribunal set aside a decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General and found that the applicant’s case was not ‘exceptional’ in relation to his application for a positive notice for a blue card.

  • Amaya v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 117

    This case concerned an appeal of a Queensland Health decision that denied the appellant an exemption from compliance with an employment vaccination directive on the basis of her religious beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist (‘the decision’). The Commission was required to conduct a review of the decision to determine whether it was fair and reasonable.

  • Bakhash v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 362

    This case concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision that the appellant contravened clause 5 of the Employment Direction 1/22 - COVID 19 Vaccination (‘the direction’), without reasonable excuse.

  • Basnayake v TAFE Queensland [2022] QIRC 444

    This case concerned an appeal of a decision to extend the appellant’s fixed term temporary employment and to not permanently appoint her based on genuine operational requirements.

  • BB v State of Queensland & Ors [2020] QCAT 496

    The Tribunal considered whether a school directly discriminated against a student, on the basis of his impairment. The Tribunal noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply in this case as the legislation commenced after the relevant events took place. Nonetheless, it found no evidence to suggest that the student’s human rights had been contravened.

  • BE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 498

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, BE. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • Bezett v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) [2023] QIRC 048

    The case concerned an application for leave to be legally represented in any conciliation conferences held before the Commission regarding an unfair dismissal application. The respondent had raised in submissions specific issues that were likely to be disputed, both in fact and law, which included whether the respondent had complied with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There were no further references to or discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Commission did not consider human rights in the decision to grant leave to be legally represented.

  • Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 292

    This case concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to refuse to exempt the appellant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.

  • BJ [2022] QCAT 326

    This case concerned an application to the Tribunal, seeking authorisation to share information about former guardianship proceedings concerning BJ with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and a News Media company.

Pages

Return to top

Health, Mental Health and Guardianship

  • ADU [2021] QCAT 70

    This matter concerned the replacement of ADU’s enduring power of attorney for personal and health matters with the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to ADU’s right to freedom of expression, right to a fair hearing and the circumstances in which a human right may be limited.

  • ADW [2021] QCAT 453

    This matter concerned an interim order application for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator. The Tribunal referred generally to the imperative under section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to not restrict rights and freedoms except where that is demonstrably justified.

  • AM [2021] QCAT 394

    This case concerned a review of the appointment of RM as Guardian for AM for legal matters. AM’s mother, FK, applied for a review of this appointment.

  • AS [2022] QCAT 148

    This matter concerned applications for the appointment of the Public Guardian as guardian for legal matters pertaining to AS and for a declaration of capacity about AS. In its reasons, the Tribunal considered AS’s rights to recognition as a person before the law entitled to equal protection without discrimination, freedom of movement and privacy under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and found that the limits imposed by the appointment of the Public Guardian as guardian for legal matters were ‘reasonable and justified in accordance with s 13’: at [10].

  • Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v GLH [2021] QMHC 4

    This matter concerned an appeal by the Attorney-General against a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal to remove a condition from the respondent’s forensic order (community category) that prevented him from having unsupervised contact with children. In making its decision to confirm the decision and dismiss the appeal, the Court considered section 20 (right to protection of families and children) and section 28 (cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • BCC [2021] QCAT 123

    This matter concerned an application to appoint a guardian and administrator for BCC because of capacity and mental health concerns. The Tribunal noted that section 13(2)(d) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was engaged when considering the need to appoint a decision-maker once the presumption of capacity had been rebutted.

  • BJ [2022] QCAT 326

    This case concerned an application to the Tribunal, seeking authorisation to share information about former guardianship proceedings concerning BJ with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and a News Media company.

  • BLK [2022] QCAT 222

    This matter concerned an interim order application for the appointment of a guardian. The Tribunal noted that a successful interim application would frequently affect the adult’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), such as their right to freedom of movement (section 19).

  • Carne v Crime and Corruption Commission [2021] QSC 228

    Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised by the CCC in a draft investigative report to the applicant’s lawyers.

  • CC [2020] QCAT 367

    This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee as guardian and administrator respectively for CC in circumstances where his sister had nominated herself for those roles. In making an order that the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee continue in their roles for the next five years, Member Allen held that this was a reasonable limitation on CC’s human rights and there were no less restrictive means available.

Pages

Return to top

Planning and Environment

  • Bowie v Queensland Police Service and Ors [2022] QLC 8

    The Court dismissed an application for a number of orders under the Land Court Act 2000 (Qld). In doing so, the Court found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had no bearing on the Queensland Police Service’s execution of a lawfully granted warrant of possession.

  • Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd & Anor v East End Mine Action Group Inc & Anor (No 4) [2021] QLC 22

    The case concerned objections to an application for a mining lease and an amended environmental authority. The Court discussed that they were required to consider the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and were subject to both substantive and procedural obligations under section 58.

  • Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14

    The case concerned an application for a mining lease. The Court briefly discussed its obligation to properly consider human rights, although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had commenced after objections had been lodged. The Court then provided an outline of the submissions that the applicants had made on human rights, but did not make any further remarks. The objections were addressed so as not to preclude a grant of the mining lease, but a number of steps still preceded its possible grant.

  • New Acland Coal Pty Ltd v Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc. & Ors (No 2) [2021] QLC 44

    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.

  • Optus Mobile Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Ors [2020] QPEC 15

    Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) raised by first co-respondent by election but not considered by the court.

  • Reef House Property Pty Ltd & Ors v Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation & Anor [2021] QCAT 383

    The applicant sought a stay of a decision from the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation to approve a commercial hotel licence application of MFB Properties (NQ) Pty Ltd for a premises at Palm Cove. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned by the Tribunal, acknowledging that they have taken into account the potential human rights impacted in their decision.

  • Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 5) [2022] QLC 4

    Waratah Coal Pty Ltd (Waratah) sought a mining lease and authorisation to mine thermal coal in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. This hearing concerned an application for an order to take evidence from First Nations witnesses on country. The Court balanced the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples under section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) against the public and private interests of minimising the inconvenience and cost of litigation. The Court held that refusing the application for on country evidence was not reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in the circumstances of the case.

  • Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21

    The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. The Court provided a detailed consideration of the mine’s human rights impacts through its contribution to climate change, and effect on the surrounding area. The Court ultimately concluded that the limitations to human rights imposed by the mine were unjustifiable.

  • Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors [2020] QLC 33

    The respondents presented objections to Waratah’s application for a mining lease and an environmental authority to build a coal mine in the Galilee Basin. They relied on sections of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their objections. These objections were referred to the Land Court.

Return to top

Political freedoms

  • Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119

    The appellant, a Registered Nurse, appealed against Queensland Health’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a vaccination directive, which he requested on the basis of his religious beliefs: at [7], [8], [13], [31]. As an aspect of the appeal, the appellant alleged that his human rights were breached through religious discrimination: at [36].

  • Steinhardt v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 111

    The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].

  • BIL v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 150

    BIL applied to renew his weapons licence, stating that he had an occupational requirement as a primary producer on rural property (acknowledged as a genuine reason for a weapons licence in s 11 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)).

  • Bell v State of Queensland [2022] QSC 80

    The applicant sought judicial review of a decision which refused approval to deliver Satanic religious instruction in State schools. The judgment alluded to a submission made by the applicant which argued that s 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) required the phrase ‘religious denomination or society’ to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights: at [44]. His Honour did not consider that this provision was applicable on the facts, and thus no substantive comments were made about human rights.

  • Amaya v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 117

    This case concerned an appeal of a Queensland Health decision that denied the appellant an exemption from compliance with an employment vaccination directive on the basis of her religious beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist (‘the decision’). The Commission was required to conduct a review of the decision to determine whether it was fair and reasonable.

  • Doedens v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 263

    This matter concerned appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process associated therewith: at [13]. The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable: at [14].

  • Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215

    This matter concerned an appeal brought by an employee of Queensland Health against a decision made by the respondent pursuant to the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 – Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements (‘the Directive’).

  • AM v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6

    The Tribunal set aside a decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General and found that the applicant’s case was not ‘exceptional’ in relation to his application for a positive notice for a blue card.

  • Morgan v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 280

    This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a rejected application for a parole order. The court found the Parole Board failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a parole order, and ordered that the original decision be set aside and remade according to law. The court found it was unnecessary to address the human rights put forward by the applicant, other than to highlight the Board’s concession that it failed to give express consideration to the applicant’s human rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD), and that the rights to freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and liberty are not rights which are held by prisoners.

  • Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21

    The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. The Court provided a detailed consideration of the mine’s human rights impacts through its contribution to climate change, and effect on the surrounding area. The Court ultimately concluded that the limitations to human rights imposed by the mine were unjustifiable.

Pages

Return to top

Privacy and Confidentiality

  • AA v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations) [2021] QCAT 258

    This case concerned a privacy complaint made against the State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations). The Tribunal did not consider the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as the Tribunal was exercising its original jurisdiction.

  • Angelopoulos v Silkwire Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QCAT 52

    This case concerned an application for a non-publication order relating to medical evidence that the applicant had filed in relation to an application he was pursuing under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). In refusing the non-publication order, the Tribunal considered that the production of the document was in the interests of justice and that the applicant’s right to privacy had not been unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

  • Benjamin Stewart Shannon v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 158

    The applicant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to dismiss him from employment with the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’). There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons, beyond bare acknowledgement that such rights had been considered.

  • BJ [2022] QCAT 326

    This case concerned an application to the Tribunal, seeking authorisation to share information about former guardianship proceedings concerning BJ with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and a News Media company.

  • DKM [2020] QCAT 441

    This case arose from an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM. During proceedings, the Tribunal initiated an application for a confidentiality order concerning a photograph of DKM.

  • DKM [2020] QCAT 443

    The Tribunal heard an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM.

  • FBN v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 260

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of offences in relation to the possession of cannabis.

  • Frost v State of Queensland & Ors [2020] QCATA 144

    This case concerned an application for a stay order to be issued in respect of a non-publication order of the Tribunal. Taking into account the respondents’ right to protection of their reputations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal refused the application.

  • Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14

    The case concerned an application for a mining lease. The Court briefly discussed its obligation to properly consider human rights, although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had commenced after objections had been lodged. The Court then provided an outline of the submissions that the applicants had made on human rights, but did not make any further remarks. The objections were addressed so as not to preclude a grant of the mining lease, but a number of steps still preceded its possible grant.

  • Health Ombudsman v ORC [2020] QCAT 181

    The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)) was noted by the Tribunal. It was ordered that due to delays in the matter, publication of materials which could identify the respondent was prohibited.

Pages

Return to top

Public Law Considerations

  • Aitchison v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 45

    This case involved an application by the Queensland Police Service to dismiss or strike out an application, in which the applicant requested a review of the revocation of their firearm licence.

  • Amaya v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 117

    This case concerned an appeal of a Queensland Health decision that denied the appellant an exemption from compliance with an employment vaccination directive on the basis of her religious beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist (‘the decision’). The Commission was required to conduct a review of the decision to determine whether it was fair and reasonable.

  • Amos v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 197

    This case concerned an appeal following a disciplinary finding. The appellant received a disciplinary finding against him following refusal to comply with a lawful direction relating to COVID-19 vaccination. The appellant submitted that the requirement for a hospital health directive to receive two doses of the COVID-19 vaccination was an unjustified breach of their human rights under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • Angelopoulos v Silkwire Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QCAT 52

    This case concerned an application for a non-publication order relating to medical evidence that the applicant had filed in relation to an application he was pursuing under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). In refusing the non-publication order, the Tribunal considered that the production of the document was in the interests of justice and that the applicant’s right to privacy had not been unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

  • BA, DC, FE v State of Queensland [2022] QCAT 332

    This interim decision concerned whether a litigation guardian would be needed by any of three children who had brought a case alleging age discrimination in respect of the conditions of detention in the Cairns watch house for periods in excess of two days and failure to segregate children from adult detainees.

  • Bakhash v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 362

    This case concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision that the appellant contravened clause 5 of the Employment Direction 1/22 - COVID 19 Vaccination (‘the direction’), without reasonable excuse.

  • Balemi v Ingles [2020] QCATA 58

    The right to a fair hearing (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31) is mentioned in the context of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), but there is no substantive discussion of the right or its application.

  • Bell v State of Queensland [2022] QSC 80

    The applicant sought judicial review of a decision which refused approval to deliver Satanic religious instruction in State schools. The judgment alluded to a submission made by the applicant which argued that s 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) required the phrase ‘religious denomination or society’ to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights: at [44]. His Honour did not consider that this provision was applicable on the facts, and thus no substantive comments were made about human rights.

  • Blomfield v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC

    This application concerned an appeal of a decision to not approve the applicant’s request for an exemption from the requirement to receive the necessary doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.

  • Bloxham v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 37

    The case concerned an application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and requirements for police officers in circumstances where the Appellant was suspended without remuneration when her exemption was denied.

Pages

Return to top

Tenancy and Social Housing

  • Angelopoulos v Silkwire Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QCAT 52

    This case concerned an application for a non-publication order relating to medical evidence that the applicant had filed in relation to an application he was pursuing under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). In refusing the non-publication order, the Tribunal considered that the production of the document was in the interests of justice and that the applicant’s right to privacy had not been unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

  • Bowie v Gela [2022] QCATA 112

    The appellant sought a stay of the Tribunal’s decision to terminate the residential tenancy agreement between the appellant and respondent. The appellant also filed an application for leave to appeal the decision which included a generalised complaint that his rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were infringed by the termination because of a shortage of housing on Badu Island. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant would be disadvantaged due to the shortage of housing, but also noted the respondent would be equally disadvantaged by not having access to her own property: at [11]. The Tribunal refused the application for a stay but did not otherwise make any substantive comments or findings in relation to the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

  • Burleigh Town Village Pty Ltd (3) [2022] QCAT 285

    The applicant applied for an exemption pursuant to section 113 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of owning and operating a manufactured home park supplying special accommodation solely for persons aged 50 and older. The Tribunal weighed the application against the infringement of rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and subsequently refused the application.

  • Gold Coast Property Expo v Rhodes [2022] QCATA 120

    The case concerned an appeal by Gold Coast Property Expo against a decision by a member to strike out or summarily dismiss their residential tenancy compensation claim against their former tenants.

  • Horizon Housing Company v Ross [2020] QCAT 41

    An application for the termination of a community housing lease was brought by a Housing Officer on the ground that the lessee would not leave the property. Human rights were considered, but not discussed in detail by the tribunal.

  • IMM v Department of Housing and Public Works [2020] QCATA 73

    This case concerned the right to a fair hearing, particularly the right to have all judgments or decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available pursuant to section 31(3) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The applicant sought an order that his name be suppressed to protect his mental health, and the Tribunal ordered a non-publication order on this basis.

  • Tamarin Pty Ltd & Otmoor Pty Ltd as Trustee v Wicks [2021] QCATA 146

    This matter concerned a minor civil dispute claim by a commercial lessor against the directors of the lessee company for various costs including rental arrears. The relevant issue on appeal was whether a decision by an adjudicator not to call for submissions regarding the issue of jurisdiction was a breach of natural justice.

  • The State of Queensland through the Department of Housing and Public Works v Tenant [2020] QCAT 144

    The Department of Housing and Public Works sought to terminate the self-represented respondent’s State Tenancy Agreement on the basis of the ‘objectionable behaviour’ of the Respondent.

Return to top

Annual report

2020/21 Annual Report for the Human Rights Case Law Project (PDF, 123.7 KB)

Contact 

Please contact our group with any enquiries at humanrights@uq.edu.au.

Disclaimer

These case notes are intended to provide summarised general information only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such.  If the subject matter of any case note relates to a transaction or matter of particular concern, you should seek your own independent formal legal advice from an admitted legal practitioner.  Please note, UQ does not offer legal services to the public.

UQ Law research

Connect with our researchers

Collaborate with us to solve today's pressing challenges. Find out how we can work together. 

Find a researcher by name
Find researchers by research area
Research themes & challenges
Potential HDR projects
Summer/Winter research scholarships
What's on


Follow UQ Law research on X

Subscribe for updates

Online resources

UQ Law Journal
ANZ Maritime Law Journal
Submissions and reports
Deaths in Custody Project
Domestic & Family Violence Bench Book
Domestic Violence Case Studies
Australian Feminist Judgements Project
Human Rights Case Law Project 

All publications and resources

Funded projects

 

Research groups

Australian Centre for Private Law
Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law
Food Security and Intellectual Property
Indigenous People and the Law
Law and the Future of War​
Law and Religion in the Asia-Pacific
Law, Science and Technology
Marine and Shipping Law Unit
UQ Solomon Islands Partnership