human rights case notes

This case concerned a privacy complaint made against the State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations). The Tribunal did not consider the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as the Tribunal was exercising its original jurisdiction.

The applicant sought an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to operate their fitness clubs exclusively for female members, and to be run exclusively by female staff. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in reference to whether granting this exemption placed a reasonable and demonstrably justifiable limit on the right to recognition and equality before the law.

The applicant sought a review of a decision to issue her a negative notice in response to an application for a blue card. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply, as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). 

This case considered whether Griffith University and two of its employees victimised or directly discriminated against the applicant on the basis of her impairment, family responsibilities and political beliefs. The Tribunal noted that proceeding to a final decision ‘on the papers’ appropriately balanced each party’s right to a fair hearing under section 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This matter concerned the replacement of ADU’s enduring power of attorney for personal and health matters with the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to ADU’s right to freedom of expression, right to a fair hearing and the circumstances in which a human right may be limited.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, KWT. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that it was required by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to provide proper consideration to any relevant human rights, but did not substantively discuss human rights.

This matter concerned an application to appoint a guardian and administrator for BCC because of capacity and mental health concerns. The Tribunal noted that section 13(2)(d) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was engaged when considering the need to appoint a decision-maker once the presumption of capacity had been rebutted.

The Tribunal considered whether a school directly discriminated against a student, on the basis of his impairment. The Tribunal noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply in this case as the legislation commenced after the relevant events took place. Nonetheless, it found no evidence to suggest that the student’s human rights had been contravened.

​​​​​​​This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, CA, due to his lengthy criminal history. In conducting its review, Member Fitzpatrick had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned a review of the applicant’s decision to suspend the respondent’s registration as a teacher on the basis that the respondent had been charged with indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age. The respondent submitted that this suspension amounted to a breach of his right under section 34 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to not be tried or punished more than once for an offence. In upholding the decision of the applicant, the Tribunal noted that the suspension was not punitive and was in the best interests of children.