• William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 130

    The case concerned a finding by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that the applicant had engaged in misconduct. The Tribunal determined that the limitations on the applicant’s human rights were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.
  • Thorley v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 133

    The appellant, a teacher, appealed against the Department of Education’s decision to suspend her without pay due to her failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination direction. The appellant argued that the decision made ‘an unjustifiable incursion’ on her human rights, and that the decision maker had no authority to ‘overrule’ section 4 of the Covid-19 Emergency Response Act (2020) (Qld) which states that it does not override the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • Tadeo v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 177

    The appellant was a technical officer at Redlynch State College whose employment was suspended without pay due to her failure to provide evidence of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in accordance with the Department of Education Employment Direction 1/21.
  • 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].
  • Neville v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 92

    The case concerned a decision to substantiate an allegation by the Respondent against the Applicant in circumstances where the Applicant was a Queensland Health employee and had contravened a direction to provide evidence of her COVID-19 vaccination.
  • McPaul v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 175

    This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.
  • McIver v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 121

    Mr Adrian McIver (the appellant), an Information Technology Officer, appealed against the respondent’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a COVID-19 vaccination directive.
  • McGuire v Nikola McWilliam t/as McGrath Legal [2022] QCATA 064

    This case concerned an appeal of a Tribunal decision that found a signatory personally liable for fees under a client agreement. The applicant complained that there was a breach of natural justice in the making of the initial decision.
  • Marino Law v VC ([2021]) QCAT 348

    This case concerned an application for reopening a previous Tribunal matter in circumstances where the Applicant did not attend the hearing in question. The Tribunal referred to s 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) where it was considered that it is the human right of an individual to have a civil proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or Tribunal after a fair hearing.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS

Research Area