• Amaya v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 117

    This case concerned an appeal of a Queensland Health decision that denied the appellant an exemption from compliance with an employment vaccination directive on the basis of her religious beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist (‘the decision’). The Commission was required to conduct a review of the decision to determine whether it was fair and reasonable.
  • Doedens v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 263

    This matter concerned appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process associated therewith: at [13]. The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable: at [14].
  • Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215

    This matter concerned an appeal brought by an employee of Queensland Health against a decision made by the respondent pursuant to the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 – Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements (‘the Directive’).
  • AM v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6

    The Tribunal set aside a decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General and found that the applicant’s case was not ‘exceptional’ in relation to his application for a positive notice for a blue card.
  • Morgan v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 280

    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.
  • Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21

    The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. The Court provided a detailed consideration of the mine’s human rights impacts through its contribution to climate change, and effect on the surrounding area. The Court ultimately concluded that the limitations to human rights imposed by the mine were unjustifiable.
  • Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 5) [2022] QLC 4

    Waratah Coal Pty Ltd (Waratah) sought a mining lease and authorisation to mine thermal coal in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. This hearing concerned an application for an order to take evidence from First Nations witnesses on country. The Court balanced the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples under section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) against the public and private interests of minimising the inconvenience and cost of litigation. The Court held that refusing the application for on country evidence was not reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in the circumstances of the case.
  • Health Ombudsman v Raynor [2021] QCAT 25

    The Tribunal was tasked with considering an application for a prohibition order against a self-represented respondent who provided massage and therapy services despite not being a registered health practitioner. The respondent made human rights submissions including the right to freedom of expression (section 21 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) and right to protection against retrospective criminal laws (section 35 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)), and the Tribunal noted the balance of these rights with other legislation.
  • EH v Queensland Police Service; GS v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 205

    The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 22) in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was briefly mentioned by Fantin DCJ in Her Honour’s reasons for allowing an appeal and resentencing the two appellants in circumstances where the original sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
  • Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246

    The Attorney-General sought urgent injunctions to restrain the second, third and fourth respondents from attending or encouraging others to attend a planned protest which included a sit-in on the Story Bridge planned for 8 August 2020.


Subscribe to RSS

Research Area