• Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119

    The appellant, a Registered Nurse, appealed against Queensland Health’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a vaccination directive, which he requested on the basis of his religious beliefs: at [7], [8], [13], [31]. As an aspect of the appeal, the appellant alleged that his human rights were breached through religious discrimination: at [36].
  • Steinhardt v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 111

    The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].
  • BIL v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 150

    BIL applied to renew his weapons licence, stating that he had an occupational requirement as a primary producer on rural property (acknowledged as a genuine reason for a weapons licence in s 11 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)).
  • Bell v State of Queensland [2022] QSC 80

    The applicant sought judicial review of a decision which refused approval to deliver Satanic religious instruction in State schools. The judgment alluded to a submission made by the applicant which argued that s 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) required the phrase ‘religious denomination or society’ to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights: at [44]. His Honour did not consider that this provision was applicable on the facts, and thus no substantive comments were made about human rights.
  • 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.


Subscribe to RSS

Research Area