• TRKJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) & Ors; KAY v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) & Ors [2021] QSC 297

    This case concerned a review of decisions of the District Court to refuse the Applicants (who were each defendants facing charges in that Court) access to counselling communications under section 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The Court considered that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply and, even if it did, the judge would not have been required to adopt a different interpretation than what they had.
  • 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.
  • Re: Mackay Regional Council [2022] QIRC 064

    This case concerned an application by the Mackay Regional Council to receive an exemption under s 113(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to recruit only people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander to apprentice/trainee positions.
  • Re Dunshea [2021] QSC 163

    This case concerned an application for bail, in which the applicant relied upon the right to liberty and security of person (section 29 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). Specifically, the applicant’s argument rested on unreasonable delay in the circumstances of his case. The Queensland Court of Appeal accepted that, weighing the factors at play, the applicant’s risk of reoffending was ameliorated to an acceptable level and that his continued detention in custody was unjustified.
  • Rae v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 160

    This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements and failure to apply for an exemption. The appellant did not make any submissions expressly regarding the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and there was no substantive discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.
  • Radev v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 414

    The case concerned an application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory
    COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers and certain staff members due to concern about a potential adverse reaction.
  • PPA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 166

    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 noted, but did not consider in detail, the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). The Tribunal also noted the right of children to the protection needed because of being a child (section 26(2)).
  • Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 3) [2022] QIRC 112

    McLennan IC considered whether the interference with the complainant's right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified in granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.
  • PC [2022] QCAT 147

    This case concerned a review of an application seeking to appoint the Public Advocate as guardian and the Public Trustee as administrator for PC by DB (PC’s carer and long-time friend and partner) and to remove a 2001 enduring power of attorney appointing PC’s daughters.
  • Oss v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 155

    The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to impose a disciplinary penalty which reduced her classification from Clinical Nurse (NG6) to Registered Nurse (NG5).

Pages

Subscribe to RSS

Research Area