human rights case notes

The applicant sought a stay of a decision from the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation to approve a commercial hotel licence application of MFB Properties (NQ) Pty Ltd for a premises at Palm Cove. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned by the Tribunal, acknowledging that they have taken into account the potential human rights impacted in their decision.

The case concerned an application to grant an exception under section 113 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) so that the applicant could complete their contracted works. The Commission ultimately concluded that it would be appropriate and reasonable to grant the exemption.

This case concerned a review of a decision to issue the applicant with a negative notice for a Blue Card on the basis that he had a history of being violent. The decision to deny a Blue Card was ultimately upheld, the best interests of children taking priority over the applicant’s interests, which the tribunal stated was consistent with human rights considerations in the circumstances. There was no significant human rights discussion.

The case concerned a review of a negative Blue Card notice. The Tribunal determined that they were required to comply with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provision directed at public entities and that the limitations to human rights from refusing to issue the blue card, excluding the media and public, and issuing the non-publication order were reasonable and justifiable. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that it was not satisfied the applicant’s case was an exceptional case and therefore it would be in the interests of children for her to be issued with a ‘working with children clearance.’

This appeal case concerned an applicant who had disconnected during a telephone hearing and did not have the opportunity to cross examine or make final submissions. The Tribunal found that the applicant was denied procedural fairness. The Tribunal considered that the right to fair hearing is recognised in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerns an appeal against a decision to refuse the appellants transfer request to a higher employment classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in regard to the obligation of the Department's decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s (Queensland Police Service) decision to suspend the applicant without pay due to her failure to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. The applicant submitted that the decision maker had exercised their discretionary power for an improper purpose in choosing to weigh the balance in favour of the relevant Direction, rather than her human rights: at [40]. The Commission noted that section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) made it clear that rights are not absolute and allowed to be limited: at [41].

The case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision and a suspension without pay decision. The appellant contended that decisions following vaccine directions made under the Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 - Employee COVID-18 vaccination requirements had contravened the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which she subsequently sought to invoke.

This matter concerned an appeal, brought against a decision regarding the Queensland Treasury’s COVID-19 vaccination requirements for Treasury employees, under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD). The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision was fair and reasonable.

This matter concerned appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process associated therewith: at [13]. The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable: at [14].