Public Law Considerations

This case concerned a review of the guardianship and administration appointments for WMJ. The Tribunal applied the General Principles in section 11B(3) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), including, in particular, the principle that the adult is entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms that apply to those with capacity.

This matter concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision made by the respondent that the appellant had not complied with the requirements of the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 by not receiving her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within the relevant time frame. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in an email to the respondent, where the appellant requested specific legislative references from relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that supported the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

This decision concerned an interlocutory application for a number of separate judicial review proceedings challenging COVID-19 vaccination directives to be heard on the same date. The court noted that one of its primary aims in managing the proceedings was to prevent a multiplicity of decisions that may give rise to different legal conclusions relevant to the provisions of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [4]. There was no specific discussion of the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to the case.

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.

The case concerned a challenge to directions of the Chief Health Officer (CHO) under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which came about because the applicants' requested reasons for the making of the decisions to make the relevant directions. The CHO refused to give reasons on the basis that his decision to make the directions was of a legislative character, not an administrative character, and that therefore he was not obliged to give reasons. The Court agreed with the CHO. There was no discussion of human rights.

This case concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for HAC: at [1]. On the same day the application was made, an application was also made for an interim order seeking the appointment of an administrator and guardian for HAC on the basis of allegations of neglect of HAC’s care and exploitation of her property, though no evidence was tendered in support of these allegations: at [4]–[5].
In refusing to make the interim order, A/Senior Member Traves held that the appointment of a guardian and administrator on an interim basis was a serious incursion on HAC’s human rights, and that there were no reasonable grounds for making the order: at [14]–[15].

This matter concerned an application to stay the operation of the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ decision to immediately suspend the applicant’s driver authorisation number as a result of him being charged with domestic violence offences.

The case concerned an appeal against a decision to suspend the Appellant’s employment as a health service employee without remuneration due to her inability to comply with Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 which required her vaccination against COVID-19.

The appellant in this case had sought an exemption to mandatory vaccination requirements on the basis of exceptional circumstances. These circumstances included concerns regarding a lack of consultation, safety, and efficacy of the vaccine, and the incursion upon the appellant’s human rights. The appellant asserted that mandatory vaccinations were a breach of section 17 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which provided the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The matter concerned the appeal of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the appellant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination. The appellant submitted he was exempt from the obligation based on a genuinely held religious belief however did not expressly refer to his rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).