Public Law Considerations

This matter concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian as guardian for HE. The Tribunal accepted that it was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and that appointing a guardian on an interim basis would interfere with a person’s human rights. In refusing the application, the Tribunal concluded that it was consistent with HE’s human rights to hold a hearing of the matter and provide HE the opportunity to be heard.

This case involved an appeal of the Tribunal’s decision that a contract between the two parties was frustrated as a result of COVID-19 government restrictions. The Tribunal recognised that it was bound by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and that a person has a right to have a civil proceeding decided by a court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing (section 31).

This matter concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal recognised that the right to freedom of movement (section 19) and right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) may be affected by the appointment of a guardian for accommodation matters. The Tribunal noted that these rights, in addition to the right to a fair hearing (section 31) under the Human Rights Act 2019, would be limited in the short-term pending a hearing held at a later date.

This case concerned an application for leave to appeal a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision to change the terms of appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian for adult, LER. The Tribunal briefly mentioned the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in making a non-publication order and granting an extension of time for leave to appeal.

The applicant sought declarations that the respondents had acted unlawfully under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by acting in a way that was incompatible with her right to freedom of expression (sections 21) and freedom of association (section 22(2)), and by failing to give proper consideration to her human rights. The Commission dismissed the application, on the basis that limitations were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

​​​​​​​An action for judicial review was brought by a prisoner in relation to two decisions: the decision to impose a maximum security order (MSO) for a further six months (following seven years of being subject to such an order); and the decision to impose a no association order. The applicant claimed that the decision-maker breached the obligation to make decisions consistently with human rights, and to consider human rights in the making of decisions. The applicant failed to make out the claims with respect to the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the right to liberty and security of person, but was successful in making out the claim in relation to the right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty.  

A self-represented litigant applied to the Court of Disputed Returns for orders to quash the result of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council election and bring about a new election. The Court found that the applicant’s submissions alleged a breach of the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and the right to take part in public life (section 23). However, the Court held that any limitation on human rights was reasonable and justifiable pursuant to s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned a self-represented applicant seeking review of the respondent’s decision to issue her with a negative blue card notice.

The Department of Housing and Public Works sought to terminate the self-represented respondent’s State Tenancy Agreement on the basis of the ‘objectionable behaviour’ of the Respondent.

This case concerns conduct occurring prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). It was agreed by both parties that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the case pursuant to s 108, which confirms that the Act has no retrospective application, and so it was not considered in any depth.