Mohr-Edgar v State of Queensland (Legal Aid Queensland) [2020] QIRC 136

Date: 31 August 2020
Tribunal: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Tribunal Member: Pidgeon IC
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 25
Rights Considered: Right to privacy and reputation
Other Legislation: Industrial Relations Act 2016, ss 451, 580; Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 s 191; Human Rights Act 2019, s 25
Keywords: Privacy and Confidentiality

In her complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), the Applicant referred to employees of Legal Aid Queensland. Legal Aid Queensland made an application seeking suppression orders within these proceedings, citing the right to privacy and reputation contained in section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The applicant in this case had lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission that contained allegations against and/or reference to employees of Legal Aid Queensland. Legal Aid Queensland lodged an application in existing proceedings seeking to suppress the entirety of the evidence, including the names of the individual respondents and the key employee at whom the allegations were against.

In submissions, Legal Aid Queensland argued that the publication of any information in these proceedings without de-identifying the individuals involved would unreasonably limit their right to privacy and reputation under section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [12]. Section 25 refers to the right not to have one’s privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, and the right not to have one’s reputation unlawfully attacked.

The Commission noted that the applicant ‘brought her complaint forward through the proper processes and appears to be genuine in her belief that she has been discriminated against’: at [35]. As such, ‘it is unclear...what is unlawful or arbitrary about the approach she has taken’: at [35]. The Commission therefore found that the application of section 25 in the circumstances did not support the Respondent’s application and the application was dismissed: at [39].

Visit the reported judgement: https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QIRC20-136.pdf