human rights case notes

This matter concerned applications for the appointment of the Public Guardian as guardian for legal matters pertaining to AS and for a declaration of capacity about AS. In its reasons, the Tribunal considered AS’s rights to recognition as a person before the law entitled to equal protection without discrimination, freedom of movement and privacy under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and found that the limits imposed by the appointment of the Public Guardian as guardian for legal matters were ‘reasonable and justified in accordance with s 13’: at [10].

The case concerned the contention that the respondent had discriminated against the applicant by requiring him to bury his father without a church service or private viewing.

This matter concerned an application by the respondent for leave to be legally represented pursuant to section 43 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), which was granted.

This decision concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s human rights, including the right to freedom of expression (section 21) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an appeal of a Queensland Health decision that denied the appellant an exemption from compliance with an employment vaccination directive on the basis of her religious beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist (‘the decision’). The Commission was required to conduct a review of the decision to determine whether it was fair and reasonable.

This case concerned a review of the appointment of RM as Guardian for AM for legal matters. AM’s mother, FK, applied for a review of this appointment.

This matter related to a public service appeal for appointment to a high classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in a departmental document tendered in evidence. However, there was no substantive discussion of human rights in the reasons.

The case concerned a complaint accepted by the now Queensland Human Rights Commission out of time and, inter alia, a secondary matter concerning a suppression of identity application made out of time.

The applicant sought a stay of a decision from the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation to approve a commercial hotel licence application of MFB Properties (NQ) Pty Ltd for a premises at Palm Cove. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned by the Tribunal, acknowledging that they have taken into account the potential human rights impacted in their decision.

The case concerned an application to grant an exception under section 113 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) so that the applicant could complete their contracted works. The Commission ultimately concluded that it would be appropriate and reasonable to grant the exemption.