human rights case notes

A self-represented litigant applied to the Court of Disputed Returns for orders to quash the result of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council election and bring about a new election. The Court found that the applicant’s submissions alleged a breach of the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and the right to take part in public life (section 23). However, the Court held that any limitation on human rights was reasonable and justifiable pursuant to s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned the reassessment of an applicant’s eligibility to hold a blue card after criminal charges against him had been finalised. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was included in the respondent’s written submissions, but was not considered in-depth by the Tribunal.

This case concerned age discrimination pertaining to an application for an exemption from section 127 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The company in question had in its trading name ‘over 50s village’ which was found to contravene this section. Given this finding, the Tribunal did not engage in an analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) despite submissions by the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

This case concerned an application for orders regarding a family dispute over the burial location of a deceased Indigenous man. Justice Henry noted that section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) did not affect the Court’s usual approach to resolving these types of cases as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customs have always been considered.

The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 22) in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was briefly mentioned by Fantin DCJ in Her Honour’s reasons for allowing an appeal and resentencing the two appellants in circumstances where the original sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JR. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal noted section 13(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and held that any limitation on JR’s human rights were consistent with giving primary consideration to the interests of children.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to vocational education (section 36), and cultural rights (section 27) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to proceedings.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, REB, due to a previous conviction for contravening a Protection Order naming his former partner and her children.

In her complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), the Applicant referred to employees of Legal Aid Queensland. Legal Aid Queensland made an application seeking suppression orders within these proceedings, citing the right to privacy and reputation contained in section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The respondents presented objections to Waratah’s application for a mining lease and an environmental authority to build a coal mine in the Galilee Basin. They relied on sections of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their objections. These objections were referred to the Land Court.