• Bakhash v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 362

    This case concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision that the appellant contravened clause 5 of the Employment Direction 1/22 - COVID 19 Vaccination (‘the direction’), without reasonable excuse.
  • Aitchison v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 45

    This case involved an application by the Queensland Police Service to dismiss or strike out an application, in which the applicant requested a review of the revocation of their firearm licence.
  • Stys v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 265

    This matter concerned an appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
  • Sandy v Queensland Human Rights Commissioner [2022] QSC 277

    The applicant sought judicial review in relation to a decision by the Commissioner of the Queensland Human Rights Commission to reject a discrimination complaint, including on the ground that the decision was unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Court did not analyse this ground in depth as it did not apply to the decision of the Commissioner which was beyond power under section 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and therefore not within the scope of section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • Philipson v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 183

    This matter concerned an appeal against a suspension without pay decision. The appellant claimed that the Queensland Police Service had not acted with proper consideration of her human rights when it issued a notice of suspension after she declined a second COVID-19 vaccination. The Commission found that the notice addressed human rights in detail and that the appellant’s human rights had been considered. There was no substantive discussion of human rights in the reasons. The decision appealed against was confirmed.
  • Morgan v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 280

    This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a rejected application for a parole order. The court found the Parole Board failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a parole order, and ordered that the original decision be set aside and remade according to law. The court found it was unnecessary to address the human rights put forward by the applicant, other than to highlight the Board’s concession that it failed to give express consideration to the applicant’s human rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD), and that the rights to freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and liberty are not rights which are held by prisoners.
  • Mizner v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) and Smith [2022] QCAT 245

    The case concerned an application for an interim injunction involving a ‘piggy-back’ claim under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on a legal action under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). There was a serious claim to be tried in relation to the applicant’s claim as there was no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether the first respondent had fulfilled their substantive obligation to identify relevant human rights, set them out by reference to the facts, say how the decision will limit the human rights and say how the limits are reasonable and justified. The Tribunal also noted that it was bound to interpret section 59 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) in a way compatible with human rights but, beyond that, was acting in a judicial capacity exercising a judicial power in its consideration of the grant of an interim injunction, with the relevant rights in the exercise of that power being the right to recognition as a person before the law and the right to a fair hearing. The Tribunal ultimately determined that the applicant was entitled to the interim injunction.
  • Luna v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 419

    This Matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse remuneration to the applicant for suspended employment due to non-compliance with COVID-19 directions. The applicant did not refer to any specific human right under the Act, however the respondent referred to section 13 of the Human Rights Act that affords for the restriction of the prescribed human rights. The Commission did not engage in any further substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights. The initial decision was affirmed.
  • Lawrence v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCATA 134

    This matter concerns an appeal from a decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner (“the OIC”) to withhold certain documents in response to an application for release under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). The tribunal confirmed the plaintiff’s right to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal under s 132 of the Act, and that such a review will be confined to questions of law, and is in this regard, similar to a judicial review. The Tribunal confirmed the original decision and stated that the original decision had regard to section 21 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that no error of law was made. The Tribunal also considered a person’s right to privacy, section 25 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), as being a factor favouring non-disclosure.
  • Jones v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 317

    This matter concerned an appeal for a review of a decision to refuse the appointment of the appellant to a higher classification position. The applicant did not refer to any specific rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and the commission did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the appellant’s human rights.


Subscribe to RSS

Research Area