human rights case notes

This case involved an application by the Queensland Police Service to dismiss or strike out an application, in which the applicant requested a review of the revocation of their firearm licence.

This matter concerned an interim order application for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator. The Tribunal referred generally to the imperative under section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to not restrict rights and freedoms except where that is demonstrably justified.

This matter concerned application for interim orders, seeking emergency appointment as administrator and guardian for WXL in circumstances where her sister (WXY) had nominated herself for those roles.

The applicant sought a declaration from the District Court, under section 29(7) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that his detention for offences for which he failed to appear was unlawful. Upon referral to the Supreme Court, it was held that section 29(7) recognises a human right to apply for a declaration as to the lawfulness of detention, but does not vest jurisdiction for declaratory relief in lower courts. The human right contained in section 29(7) would be accommodated in this, and other cases, by applying for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision directing the applicant, Ms Wilson, to attend an independent medical examination. The tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.

The Tribunal discussed the right to fair hearing within the context of an application to amend a default decision to add another party.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent that the applicant’s case was an exceptional case and that, therefore, the applicant’s positive notice should be cancelled. The applicant was studying to be nurse and had recent drug charges.

This case concerned an appeal by VSI, the son of VR, of various decisions of the tribunal by different members on different dates: as at [2]. These decisions were made under relevant provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) and the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld).

This matter concerned an application for an interim order for a guardian and administrator for TPO, brought by his daughter DTA, on the basis of alleged misconduct by WFA, TPO’s de facto partner and power of attorney.

The respondent sought an order dismissing the claim filed by the applicant on the basis that, inter alia, the claim was made out of time, while the applicant sought an order that time be extended to the date of the filing of the claim. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the Commission’s consideration of the application to extend time on the basis that it was not acting in an administrative capacity. The application was dismissed.