• SQH v Scott [2022] QSC 16

    This case concerned an appeal premised on the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt (section 32(2)(k)). After consideration of a number of provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Court ultimately found that the grounds of appeal could not be made out as the limitation imposed upon said rights was justified (section 13).
  • JDT v PDL (No 2) [2022] QDC 147

    This decision concerned an interlocutory application regarding matters of civil procedure arising from defamation proceedings that were yet to be determined. The applicant sought to have their name anonymised in the court’s published reasons.
  • Hunt v State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) [2022] QIRC 162

    This matter involved an application for appeal of a disciplinary decision from the Respondent based on various allegations made in respect to the Applicant’s conduct during his employment.
  • Benjamin Stewart Shannon v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 158

    The applicant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to dismiss him from employment with the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’). There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons, beyond bare acknowledgement that such rights had been considered.
  • BJ [2022] QCAT 326

    This case concerned an application to the Tribunal, seeking authorisation to share information about former guardianship proceedings concerning BJ with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and a News Media company.
  • Phillips v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2023] QIRC 019

    This matter concerned the appeal of a decision made by the respondent to transfer the appellant to a new managerial position. The respondent claimed that the transfer was made due to ‘complex difficulties’ in the workplace, mental or physical illness or disability caused by work and an account from a medical practitioner that the appellant’s workplace issues were the source of their health issues.
  • Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 352

    McLennan IC considered interference with the complainant's right to privacy and confidentiality under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified when granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.
  • Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14

    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.
  • MB [2022] QCAT 185

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MB. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal considered property rights, the right to privacy and reputation, the right to protection of families and children, the right to a fair hearing, the right not to be tried or punished more than once and the right to education.
  • Angelopoulos v Silkwire Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QCAT 52

    This case concerned an application for a non-publication order relating to medical evidence that the applicant had filed in relation to an application he was pursuing under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). In refusing the non-publication order, the Tribunal considered that the production of the document was in the interests of justice and that the applicant’s right to privacy had not been unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.


Subscribe to RSS

Research Area