human rights case notes

The case concerned an application to review a contact decision. The Tribunal determined that MKD was not a parent or a member of the children’s family, so he had no standing to bring an application to review that decision and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the application.

The appellant in this case had sought an exemption to mandatory vaccination requirements on the basis of exceptional circumstances. These circumstances included concerns regarding a lack of consultation, safety, and efficacy of the vaccine, and the incursion upon the appellant’s human rights. The appellant asserted that mandatory vaccinations were a breach of section 17 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which provided the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

This case concerned proceedings relating to a challenge of a decision made by the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner to not accept a complaint made by the applicant. Martin SJA ordered the application to be adjourned to a date to be fixed and a contradictor to be appointed to assist the Court in dealing with the matter.

The matter concerned the appeal of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the appellant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination. The appellant submitted he was exempt from the obligation based on a genuinely held religious belief however did not expressly refer to his rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerns an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made with respect to the appellant’s fixed term temporary employment status and consideration of conversion to permanent employment. In order to consider the appeal, it was necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act 2008 and Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment, the latter of which included a reference to the requirement imposed by section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 which requires decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights. However, there was no consideration of human rights made by the Commission.

The appellant sought a preliminary decision about whether information filed by QPS was ‘criminal intelligence’ in proceedings involving a substantive review of three decisions relating to weapons licensing.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment from a Registered Nurse (NG5) to a Clinical Nurse (NG6).

This case concerned an application by the respondent for orders that they be granted leave to be legally represented at the proceedings between the respondent and the applicant. The substantive proceedings concerned the applicant seeking reinstatement of his former position, where he had raised the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [22]. This was not considered by the Commission.

The case concerned objections to an application for a mining lease and an amended environmental authority. The Court discussed that they were required to consider the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and were subject to both substantive and procedural obligations under section 58.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised by the CCC in a draft investigative report to the applicant’s lawyers.