human rights case notes

The applicant alleged discrimination, inter alia, on the basis of an unreasonable limitation of the right to recognition and equality before the law pursuant to section 15 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The commission never addresses this contention further.

This case arose under an application for the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland to be appointed as Guardian and Administrator respectively for the adult. The Tribunal noted in its reasoning that the case was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that appointment of guardians and administrators impose limitations on human rights.

The plaintiff sought various forms of substantive relief on the basis of human rights, however the Court considered that this was based on a “fundamental misconstruction” of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and did not consider it necessary to deal with such submissions. As such, there was no substantive consideration of human rights by the Court.

Seven police officers sought review of the decision by the Commissioner to issue a Direction requiring all police officers and some frontline staff members to receive two COVID-19 vaccinations by certain dates and to provide evidence of having done so. Contemporaneously, twelve ambulance officers and one nurse brought an application on the same terms against the Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Commissioner of Queensland Ambulance Services. Solicitors and counsel for the applicants in both applications were the same and the matters were heard together.

The four proceedings (Johnston, Whitthahn, Sutton and Baxter) involve applicants challenging the directives of the Executive which require them to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before entering particular premises or attending particular workplaces. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.

The case concerned an appeal of finding and disciplinary decisions concerning five allegations associated with an alleged failure to comply with a workplace directive to wear a facemask.

This case concerned an application for 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 considered the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2) and cultural rights (sections 27-28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned several applications by IHC’s sons SHM and BHJ to be appointed as Guardian, Administrator and Enduring power of attorney. Member Casey ordered that the Public Guardian be appointed as guardian for IHC regarding accommodation and healthcare, and the Public Trustee appointed as administrator for all financial matters. In doing so, Member Casey held that this was a reasonable limitation on IHC’s human rights.

The case concerned a review of a decision to issue a negative notice pursuant to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), where the applicant’s case was found to be ‘exceptional.’

This matter involved an application for appeal of a disciplinary decision from the Respondent based on various allegations made in respect to the Applicant’s conduct during his employment.