human rights case notes

The applicant was issued with a negative Blue Card notice following his being charged with criminal offences related to an incident he described as a ‘prank’. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice and stated that the respondent had appropriately acknowledged and considered the applicant’s human rights.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision to issue a negative notice for a Blue Card where the applicant had been convicted of breaching domestic violence orders, breaching a suspended sentence, breaching a probation order, failing to appear in accordance with undertaking, breaching bail conditions, possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RLJ. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s rights to a fair hearing (section 31) and not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34) as well as the right to protect families and children (section 26) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.

The Applicant brought a claim against the Respondent Council and alleged that the Council had indirectly discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities in not providing sufficient car parking arrangements. The Tribunal determined that the Council’s term requiring people using the car park to park in accordance with regulated signage was reasonable in all the circumstances, such that there had been no indirect discrimination.

This matter concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as Guardian and Administrator respectively for MGT, in circumstances where the Public Guardian had made the accommodation decision to remove MGT from his mother’s (BC) place of residence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in acknowledging that certain fundamental human rights exist, irrespective of capacity.

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.

Mr Adrian McIver (the appellant), an Information Technology Officer, appealed against the respondent’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a COVID-19 vaccination directive.

This case concerned an appeal of a Tribunal decision that found a signatory personally liable for fees under a client agreement. The applicant complained that there was a breach of natural justice in the making of the initial decision.

This case concerned an application for reopening a previous Tribunal matter in circumstances where the Applicant did not attend the hearing in question. The Tribunal referred to s 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) where it was considered that it is the human right of an individual to have a civil proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or Tribunal after a fair hearing.

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.