human rights case notes

The case concerned an appeal of a decision which included an application for notices to produce documents where they may be relevant to capacity, subsequent to the making of an enduring power of attorney appointing the respondent as attorney for the application.

This matter concerned an appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

The case concerned an application for leave to be legally represented. The Court considered that the applicant’s right to equal protection would not be compromised, and ultimately granted leave.

The case concerned a claim for damages of a breach of lease regarding a swimming pool. The plaintiff in his written submissions asserted that his right to fair hearing had been breached by the defendant’s solicitors through failing to facilitate the litigation proceeding expeditiously and at a minimum of expense. There was no direct engagement by the Court with human rights considerations.

The applicant sought judicial review in relation to a decision by the Commissioner of the Queensland Human Rights Commission to reject a discrimination complaint, including on the ground that the decision was unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Court did not analyse this ground in depth as it did not apply to the decision of the Commissioner which was beyond power under section 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and therefore not within the scope of section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This matter was referred by the Childrens Court to QCAT to determine whether RNE had the capacity to understand ongoing child protection proceedings in the Children Court regarding his children, and whether a guardian should be appointed to make decisions for him in legal matters. Further tribunal-initiated applications were made relating to the protection of privacy for the children. These are the reasons for decisions made concerning the application for a confidentiality order and non-publication order.

This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian for REN where his daughter (RAD) and nephew (SR) nominated themselves as prospective guardians. In making an order that RAD and SR be appointed as guardians, Member McDonald acknowledged the limitations on REN’s human rights, concluding they were both reasonable and necessary.

In the course of their employment, the applicants must comply with obligations pursuant to US Export Authorizations and, were concerned that, to ensure compliance, they may be obliged to engage in conduct in respect of certain persons which may contravene these sections of the Act: [3].

The case concerned an application seeking an exemption from the operation of s 14 and s 15 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of undertaking an affirmative action recruitment plan that targets only female waste truck drivers. The Commission was satisfied that the exemption was compatible with human rights and granted the exemption to the Ipswich City Council for a period of three years.

This case concerned an application of the defendant to subpoena documents or records from an organisation that provided counselling services and support to a child complainant. Accordingly and on behalf of the defendant, an objection was raised as to the standing of the counselled child to be heard under criteria in s 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Long SC DCJ allowed the objection of the defendant to the counselled child being allowed leave to be heard, upon the broad basis on which the application had been sought. Sections 25 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were mentioned in the header, but there was no discussion of human rights.