• Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246

    The Attorney-General sought urgent injunctions to restrain the second, third and fourth respondents from attending or encouraging others to attend a planned protest which included a sit-in on the Story Bridge planned for 8 August 2020.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • TRE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 306

    This case concerned a self-represented applicant seeking review of the respondent’s decision to issue her with a negative blue card notice.
  • 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’.
  • WDE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 301

    This case concerned an application for administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of Schedule 2 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
  • R v Morrison [2020] QCA 187

    The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by the District Court on the ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive.
  • MJP [2020] QCAT 253

    The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal reviewed guardianship appointments for MJP, a young man who is unable to communicate decisions about his life.
  • RTM v The Queen [2020] QDC 93

    The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it is in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 32(2)(c)) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
  • R v Mitchell [2020] QDC 89

    The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS

Research Area