human rights case notes

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland as guardian and administrator respectively, for a 90-year-old adult male (‘NHI’). NHI was diagnosed with dementia of mixed aetiology (amidst other health concerns), when admitted to hospital after being found on the floor in his remote residence, where he lives alone. The Tribunal briefly considered relevant human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), discussing that statutory provisions must be interpreted to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, and in a way compatible with human rights.

This matter concerned multiple issues arising out of a guardianship application for MTC. MTC’s children SNB, SNE and DTA sought to replace the Public Trustee as MTC’s guardian and administrator, subject to a loan dispute with MTC’s other child, SND, being resolved. The Tribunal recognised that the appointment of an ongoing administrator would impact MTC’s property rights under section 24 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), noting that although the appointment of administrator does not deprive an adult of their ownership of property, it does remove their control over the property.

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a rejected application for a parole order. The court found the Parole Board failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a parole order, and ordered that the original decision be set aside and remade according to law. The court found it was unnecessary to address the human rights put forward by the applicant, other than to highlight the Board’s concession that it failed to give express consideration to the applicant’s human rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD), and that the rights to freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and liberty are not rights which are held by prisoners.

The case concerned an application for an interim injunction involving a ‘piggy-back’ claim under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on a legal action under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). There was a serious claim to be tried in relation to the applicant’s claim as there was no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether the first respondent had fulfilled their substantive obligation to identify relevant human rights, set them out by reference to the facts, say how the decision will limit the human rights and say how the limits are reasonable and justified. The Tribunal also noted that it was bound to interpret section 59 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) in a way compatible with human rights but, beyond that, was acting in a judicial capacity exercising a judicial power in its consideration of the grant of an interim injunction, with the relevant rights in the exercise of that power being the right to recognition as a person before the law and the right to a fair hearing. The Tribunal ultimately determined that the applicant was entitled to the interim injunction.

This matter concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative Blue Card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) the right not to be punished more than once for an offence (section 34), as well as the rights of every child to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child (section 26) were relevant, but found that this decision does not limit the applicant’s rights or the rights of children to protection and is therefore compatible with human rights.

This Matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse remuneration to the applicant for suspended employment due to non-compliance with COVID-19 directions. The applicant did not refer to any specific human right under the Act, however the respondent referred to section 13 of the Human Rights Act that affords for the restriction of the prescribed human rights. The Commission did not engage in any further substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights. The initial decision was affirmed.

This matter concerned three applications brought by a hospital social worker regarding LDR for the appointment of a guardian; for the appointment of an administrator; for an interim order for appointment of a guardian and an administrator until the substantive applications have been decided.

This matter concerns an appeal from a decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner (“the OIC”) to withhold certain documents in response to an application for release under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). The tribunal confirmed the plaintiff’s right to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal under s 132 of the Act, and that such a review will be confined to questions of law, and is in this regard, similar to a judicial review. The Tribunal confirmed the original decision and stated that the original decision had regard to section 21 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that no error of law was made. The Tribunal also considered a person’s right to privacy, section 25 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), as being a factor favouring non-disclosure.

The matter concerned an application for a review of the decision from the respondent refusing to renew the applicant’s firearm licence. There were no submissions made from the parties in relation to human rights. Nevertheless, the tribunal was bound to apply the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The tribunal balanced the applicant’s recognition and equality before the law and property rights against the public and individual safety and found that the public interest in safety outweighs the private interest of the applicant. The tribunal considered that any limitation on applicant’s human right was reasonable and justified under Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) but did not engage in any further substantive discussion.

The case concerned an application by non-parties requesting an order to be added as parties and an order that material provided by them be considered in a review of a decision of the Councillor Conduct Tribunal that substantiated a finding of misconduct against a former councillor.