human rights case notes

This matter concerned an appeal for a review of a decision to refuse the appointment of the appellant to a higher classification position. The applicant did not refer to any specific rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and the commission did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the appellant’s human rights.

The case concerned whether legal professional privilege had been waived for the purpose of a subpoena requiring production of legal advice that had been issued by the applicant. Evidence was given in cross examination that a legal advice had given sufficient comfort that the direction would be compatible with human rights. The Court considered that privilege had been waived. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.

This case involved an application to progress a complaint that was originally made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, onto the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The complaint regarded an allegation of discrimination on the basis of race, from a job advertisement process conducted by the Queensland Art Gallery.

This matter concerned an application about a declaration of capacity seeking the removal the Public Trustee of Queensland as the administrator of SL, and the appointment of her sister DR as administrator. Submissions regarding the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD) were made from both parties.

This matter concerned an application filed by a hospital social worker for an interim appointment of a guardian and an administrator in respect of an elderly woman. The applicant did not refer to human rights.

This matter concerned a fair treatment appeal against a finding that grounds for discipline had been established after the appellant was convicted of fraud and her employer (the respondent) found her guilty of misconduct under the Public Service Act. The appellant referred to their right to a fair and public hearing (section 31), right to legal representation and the use of a witness in a criminal trial (sections 32(2)(d)-(h)) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34).

This case concerned an application for judicial review of public health directives. The appellants also sought relief under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but the court did not substantively discuss the claim.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the Covid-19 Vaccination mandates. The applicant referred to their right to protection from torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment (section 17). The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission endorsed the decision made by the internal review and denied Harry’s application for an extension of time in which to commence the appeal.

The case concerned an application for a mining lease. The Court briefly discussed its obligation to properly consider human rights, although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had commenced after objections had been lodged. The Court then provided an outline of the submissions that the applicants had made on human rights, but did not make any further remarks. The objections were addressed so as not to preclude a grant of the mining lease, but a number of steps still preceded its possible grant.

HAJ, the appointed attorney for HAW in relation to financial, personal and health matters, filed an application seeking authorisation of a conflict transaction. The Tribunal was satisfied that authorising these transactions was compatible with HAW’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), specifically HAW’s property rights.