human rights case notes

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice on the basis that the applicant was an ‘exceptional case’. In deciding that the applicant was not an exceptional case, the Tribunal briefly considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) and considered that, to the extent that there were any limitations on those rights, those limitations were reasonable and justifiable.

An application for the review of a negative blue card notice was brought by a full-time truck driver. Member Taylor found that, as the applicant had been convicted of a serious offence in 2004, as defined in the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), a negative notice must be issued unless an exceptional case exists in which it would not harm the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to be issued.

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.

This case concerned a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to reject the applicant's renewal of her weapons licence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and their obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

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).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant.

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal and an application to stay a decision made by the Tribunal regarding EMC’s removal as an Enduring Power of Attorney for ECJ.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the COVID-19 Vaccination. The Commissioner did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights.

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to refuse to convert the appellant’s employment from an AO5 Deployment Officer to an AO6 Senior Deployment Officer where she had been effectively acting at the higher level since August 2018.

This case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary findings decision and suspension without pay decision due to non-compliance with the COVID-19 vaccination requirement policy.