• Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 018

    Ms Colebourne was an employee Queensland Police Service. She refused to be vaccinated. Her employment was suspended without remuneration. She challenged this on various grounds including that the decision was to punish her, which was an improper purpose under statute: at [34]. Her evidence for this was an admission by Acting Assistant Commissioner Nelson that the decision limited various of her rights: at [80].
  • Clarke v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 70

    The case concerned an appeal against a suspension without remuneration decision that involved the Appellant’s refusal to meet COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
  • Casson v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 113

    The appellant sought a review of the decision to suspend his employment from public service without remuneration as a result of his noncompliance with a direction to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.
  • Bloxham v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 37

    The case concerned an application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and requirements for police officers in circumstances where the Appellant was suspended without remuneration when her exemption was denied.
  • Blomfield v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC

    This application concerned an appeal of a decision to not approve the applicant’s request for an exemption from the requirement to receive the necessary doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.
  • Bell v State of Queensland [2022] QSC 80

    The applicant sought judicial review of a decision which refused approval to deliver Satanic religious instruction in State schools. The judgment alluded to a submission made by the applicant which argued that s 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) required the phrase ‘religious denomination or society’ to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights: at [44]. His Honour did not consider that this provision was applicable on the facts, and thus no substantive comments were made about human rights.
  • Amos v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 197

    This case concerned an appeal following a disciplinary finding. The appellant received a disciplinary finding against him following refusal to comply with a lawful direction relating to COVID-19 vaccination. The appellant submitted that the requirement for a hospital health directive to receive two doses of the COVID-19 vaccination was an unjustified breach of their human rights under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • Devon v Department of Seniors, Disability Services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships [2022] QCAT 386

    The case concerned an application for a review of an exclusion from working in the disability sector. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant’s rights to fair hearing and not to be tried or punished more than once had not been limited, and that it could lawfully make a decision incompatible with the applicant’s right to reputation as the Disability Services Act 2000 (Qld) compels it to conduct a risk assessment, and to make the safety of persons with a disability the paramount consideration. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application.
  • Burleigh Town Village Pty Ltd (3) [2022] QCAT 285

    The applicant applied for an exemption pursuant to section 113 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of owning and operating a manufactured home park supplying special accommodation solely for persons aged 50 and older. The Tribunal weighed the application against the infringement of rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and subsequently refused the application.
  • Amaya v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 117

    This case concerned an appeal of a Queensland Health decision that denied the appellant an exemption from compliance with an employment vaccination directive on the basis of her religious beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist (‘the decision’). The Commission was required to conduct a review of the decision to determine whether it was fair and reasonable.


Subscribe to RSS

Research Area