human rights case notes

The case concerned a review of a negative Blue Card notice. The Tribunal determined that they were required to comply with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provision directed at public entities and that the limitations to human rights from refusing to issue the blue card, excluding the media and public, and issuing the non-publication order were reasonable and justifiable. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that it was not satisfied the applicant’s case was an exceptional case and therefore it would be in the interests of children for her to be issued with a ‘working with children clearance.’

This appeal case concerned an applicant who had disconnected during a telephone hearing and did not have the opportunity to cross examine or make final submissions. The Tribunal found that the applicant was denied procedural fairness. The Tribunal considered that the right to fair hearing is recognised in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerns an appeal against a decision to refuse the appellants transfer request to a higher employment classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in regard to the obligation of the Department's decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s (Queensland Police Service) decision to suspend the applicant without pay due to her failure to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. The applicant submitted that the decision maker had exercised their discretionary power for an improper purpose in choosing to weigh the balance in favour of the relevant Direction, rather than her human rights: at [40]. The Commission noted that section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) made it clear that rights are not absolute and allowed to be limited: at [41].

The case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision and a suspension without pay decision. The appellant contended that decisions following vaccine directions made under the Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 - Employee COVID-18 vaccination requirements had contravened the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which she subsequently sought to invoke.

This matter concerned an appeal, brought against a decision regarding the Queensland Treasury’s COVID-19 vaccination requirements for Treasury employees, under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD). The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision was fair and reasonable.

This matter concerned appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process associated therewith: at [13]. The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable: at [14].

The case concerned a disciplinary reprimand in relation to an allegation that the appellant illegally parked on the Princess Alexandra Hospital campus. The appellant made submissions that the respondent had ‘defied’ the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in causing the appellant’s ‘sheer mental agony and torture.’ The Commission disagreed and instead found that it was reasonable for the decision-maker to impose the disciplinary action.

This case concerned an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made under section 175 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) requiring the applicant to submit to a medical examination.

The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee as guardian and administrator respectively for CTR, in circumstances where it was accepted that the limits imposed by this order were reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on CTR’s right to privacy (section 25), freedom of movement (section 19) and property rights (section 24).