Privacy and Confidentiality

This case concerned an application for an interim order to prohibit the respondent from restricting the applicant’s communications with Matthew Flinders Anglican College or their staff, pending resolution of a discrimination complaint before the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

This matter concerned an application by a journalist for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to seek orders authorising the publication of information about guardianship proceedings in a way that identified the person to whom the application and orders were about.

This case concerned applications filed by Dr Graeme Walker about LKZ, a 28-year-old woman who is 10 weeks pregnant and has impaired capacity. Dr Walker seeks the Tribunal’s approval for LKZ to undergo a pregnancy termination and a medical procedure which would involve the surgical removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes.

McLennan IC considered whether the interference with the complainant's right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified in granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.

This application concerned the appointment of a guardian and administrator for MXQ, the making of a confidentiality order, and the making of orders limiting information sharing with particular individuals.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.