• 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.
  • Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 190

    This case concerned an application for an order protecting the complainant’s interests. The applicant had lodged a discrimination complaint in relation to his employer, Queensland Health’s, decision not to employ him, which the applicant alleged was on the basis of his relationship with another doctor at that hospital.
  • Ryle v Venables & Ors [2021] QSC 60

    The case concerned the rejection of a complaint of impairment discrimination contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by the first respondent acting as the delegate of the Human Rights Commissioner on the basis it was out of time. This application for judicial review was unsuccessful, as no ground for judicial review could be established. The Court briefly outlined the impacts of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on the framework established by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
  • Sandy v Queensland Human Rights Commissioner [2022] QSC 277

    The applicant sought judicial review in relation to a decision by the Commissioner of the Queensland Human Rights Commission to reject a discrimination complaint, including on the ground that the decision was unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Court did not analyse this ground in depth as it did not apply to the decision of the Commissioner which was beyond power under section 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and therefore not within the scope of section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • Re: Cobham Aviation Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QIRC 326

    In the course of their employment, the applicants must comply with obligations pursuant to US Export Authorizations and, were concerned that, to ensure compliance, they may be obliged to engage in conduct in respect of certain persons which may contravene these sections of the Act: [3].
  • Re: Ipswich City Council [2020] QIRC 194

    The case concerned an application seeking an exemption from the operation of s 14 and s 15 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of undertaking an affirmative action recruitment plan that targets only female waste truck drivers. The Commission was satisfied that the exemption was compatible with human rights and granted the exemption to the Ipswich City Council for a period of three years.
  • 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.
  • Mizner v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) and Smith [2022] QCAT 245

    The case concerned an application for an interim injunction involving a ‘piggy-back’ claim under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on a legal action under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). There was a serious claim to be tried in relation to the applicant’s claim as there was no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether the first respondent had fulfilled their substantive obligation to identify relevant human rights, set them out by reference to the facts, say how the decision will limit the human rights and say how the limits are reasonable and justified. The Tribunal also noted that it was bound to interpret section 59 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) in a way compatible with human rights but, beyond that, was acting in a judicial capacity exercising a judicial power in its consideration of the grant of an interim injunction, with the relevant rights in the exercise of that power being the right to recognition as a person before the law and the right to a fair hearing. The Tribunal ultimately determined that the applicant was entitled to the interim injunction.
  • 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.
  • 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.


Subscribe to RSS

Research Area