• Brisbane Marine Pilots Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v General Manager of Maritime Safety Queensland, Department of Transport and Main Roads and Ors (costs) [2022] QCAT 225

    This case concerned an application for a costs order. The Court briefly discussed human rights but did not apply these principles to the matter at hand.
  • White v Ideal Concreting and Landscapes ABN 75 165 352 250 [2022] QCAT 310

    The Tribunal discussed the right to fair hearing within the context of an application to amend a default decision to add another party.
  • Thornton v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 393

    The respondent sought an order dismissing the claim filed by the applicant on the basis that, inter alia, the claim was made out of time, while the applicant sought an order that time be extended to the date of the filing of the claim. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the Commission’s consideration of the application to extend time on the basis that it was not acting in an administrative capacity. The application was dismissed.
  • Sandy’s Swim Pty Ltd v Morgan [2022] QDC 131

    The case concerned a claim for damages of a breach of lease regarding a swimming pool. The plaintiff in his written submissions asserted that his right to fair hearing had been breached by the defendant’s solicitors through failing to facilitate the litigation proceeding expeditiously and at a minimum of expense. There was no direct engagement by the Court with human rights considerations.
  • R v WTS [2022] QDCPR 57

    This case concerned an application of the defendant to subpoena documents or records from an organisation that provided counselling services and support to a child complainant. Accordingly and on behalf of the defendant, an objection was raised as to the standing of the counselled child to be heard under criteria in s 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Long SC DCJ allowed the objection of the defendant to the counselled child being allowed leave to be heard, upon the broad basis on which the application had been sought. Sections 25 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were mentioned in the header, but there was no discussion of human rights.
  • R v CMA [2022] QDCPR 56

    Following their indictment before the Court in respect of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care, this case concerned an application by the defendant for leave to subpoena ‘protected counselling communication’ records and information; and produce to the court, adduce evidence of or otherwise ‘use protected counselling communication’; and otherwise disclose, inspect or copy a ‘protected counselling communication’.
  • Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 352

    McLennan IC considered interference with the complainant's right to privacy and confidentiality under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified when granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.
  • Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237

    This case concerned the application for an order of a reportable death under the Coroners Act 2003. The jurisdiction of the District Court derives from section 11A of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld), which provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the State Coroner’s decision may apply for an order about whether it is a reportable death. The court did not engage in any substantive discussion regarding the Human Rights Act 2019; however, it was noted that the decision was found to be compatible with and to satisfy any operative provision of the Human Rights Act 2019.
  • Kremastos v Councillor Conduct Tribunal & Anor [2022] QCAT 319

    The case concerned an application by non-parties requesting an order to be added as parties and an order that material provided by them be considered in a review of a decision of the Councillor Conduct Tribunal that substantiated a finding of misconduct against a former councillor.
  • Johnston & Ors v Carroll (APM, Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service) [2022] QSC 115

    The case concerned whether legal professional privilege had been waived for the purpose of a subpoena requiring production of legal advice that had been issued by the applicant. Evidence was given in cross examination that a legal advice had given sufficient comfort that the direction would be compatible with human rights. The Court considered that privilege had been waived. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.


Subscribe to RSS

Research Area