Privacy and Confidentiality

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This case concerned a privacy complaint made against the State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations). The Tribunal did not consider the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as the Tribunal was exercising its original jurisdiction.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, HM. The Tribunal considered whether its decision was compatible with the applicant’s rights to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the rights of children to necessary protection that is in their best interests (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and concluded that its decision promotes and is compatible with human rights.

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).    

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MK. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant's right to take part in public life (section 23), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)), under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The Tribunal heard an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM.