Civil Procedure

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This matter concerned a fair treatment appeal against a finding that grounds for discipline had been established after the appellant was convicted of fraud and her employer (the respondent) found her guilty of misconduct under the Public Service Act. The appellant referred to their right to a fair and public hearing (section 31), right to legal representation and the use of a witness in a criminal trial (sections 32(2)(d)-(h)) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34).

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.

In these proceedings, the Australian Institute for Progress sought an order that the Electoral Commission of Queensland pay their costs despite the Institute being unsuccessful in their application for declaratory relief. The Institute argued that this case warranted departure from the general rule that costs follow the event because the proceedings were of public interest and provided useful commentary on the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld). Applegarth J held that there was no sufficient reason to depart from the general costs rule and the Institute was ordered to pay the Commission’s costs.