Public Law Considerations

This case involved an application to progress a complaint that was originally made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, onto the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The complaint regarded an allegation of discrimination on the basis of race, from a job advertisement process conducted by the Queensland Art Gallery.

This matter concerned a fair treatment appeal against a finding that grounds for discipline had been established after the appellant was convicted of fraud and her employer (the respondent) found her guilty of misconduct under the Public Service Act. The appellant referred to their right to a fair and public hearing (section 31), right to legal representation and the use of a witness in a criminal trial (sections 32(2)(d)-(h)) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34).

This case concerned an application for judicial review of public health directives. The appellants also sought relief under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but the court did not substantively discuss the claim.

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 mandates. The applicant referred to their right to protection from torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment (section 17). The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission endorsed the decision made by the internal review and denied Harry’s application for an extension of time in which to commence the appeal.

This case concerned an application for judicial review of a decision of the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy to cancel the applicant’s certificate of competency. The application was dismissed and the Court found that section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was not engaged when interpreting sections 12, 14 or 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MB. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal considered property rights, the right to privacy and reputation, the right to protection of families and children, the right to a fair hearing, the right not to be tried or punished more than once and the right to education.

This case concerned an application for a non-publication order relating to medical evidence that the applicant had filed in relation to an application he was pursuing under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). In refusing the non-publication order, the Tribunal considered that the production of the document was in the interests of justice and that the applicant’s right to privacy had not been unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

This matter concerned a minor civil dispute claim by a commercial lessor against the directors of the lessee company for various costs including rental arrears. The relevant issue on appeal was whether a decision by an adjudicator not to call for submissions regarding the issue of jurisdiction was a breach of natural justice.

The applicant was a police officer who was charged with four disciplinary allegations and found guilty by the respondent. The Tribunal noted that it was required under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to have regard to the applicant’s human rights, and found that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21) and right to not have his reputation unlawfully attacked (section 25(b)) were potentially limited. The Tribunal was satisfied that limitations on these rights were consistent with the proper purpose of upholding public confidence in the police service and ensuring police discipline.