Human Rights Case Law Project

Published cases referring to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

The UQ Human Rights Case Law Project is an initiative of the UQ School of Law and Caxton Legal Centre Inc. The aim of this project is to ensure that practitioners, researchers, students and members of the public have easy access to all published cases that refer to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). 

Case notes for all published decisions that mention the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) will be added to this page. Please be patient with us – we are a small team so the case notes might not appear immediately, but we will do our best to complete them as quickly as possible.

This project is run by Professor Tamara Walsh (UQ Law) and Bridget Burton (Caxton Legal Centre).

Current team members are: Elizabeth Aisi (Student Leader), Tulli Seton and Linden Peacock.

 

On this page:


Children and Families
Civil Procedure
Commercial
Criminal Law and Corrective Services
Discrimination
Education, Training and Employment
Health, Mental Health and Guardianship
Planning and Environment
Political Freedoms
Privacy and Confidentiality
Public Law Considerations
Tenancy and Social Housing

Children and Families

  • AB v CD [2020] QCAT 295

    The applicant made an application for a minor debt for the collection and recovery of a child support overpayment by one parent to another.
  • ADI v EGI [2020] QDC 13

    The provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were cited by a self-represented applicant arguing for a stay of the decision of the Magistrates Court to dismiss her application to vary a protection order. The court gave limited consideration to the interpretation provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and did not elaborate on the applicant’s arguments.
  • NN and IN v Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women [2020] QCAT 146

    The right to protection of families and children (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 26) was argued by the applicants and analysed by the court in the context of a foster child and his foster family. The court held that the term “family” was to be given a broad interpretation and understood in the society of a particular country.
  • PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188

    A self-represented litigant sought judicial review after being issued a negative notice by Blue Card Services arguing that his case was ‘exceptional’. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal analysed limiting the applicant’s human rights and issued a non-publication order in light of the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)).
  • RE and RL v Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women [2020] QCAT 151

    Foster parents applied to the Tribunal to review decisions made by the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women to remove two children from their care and cancel their certificate of approval as foster carers. The Tribunal had regard to the applicants’ right to recognition and equality before the law but held that the right to protection of families did not apply as foster carers do not constitute “family” for the purpose of s 26 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The protection of children under s 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), was also considered in relation to the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld).
  • Storch v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 152

    The self-represented applicant argued that the respondent’s decision to issue him with a negative blue card notice, despite him being acquitted at trial of a charge of indecent treatment of a child, was a breach of several rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • WDE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 301

    This case concerned an application for administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of Schedule 2 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

Civil Procedure

  • Flowers v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1467

    Human rights breaches by the NSW Police were argued by the plaintiff, but the court considered the argument to be irrelevant to the case.
  • The Australian Institute for Progress Ltd v The Electoral Commission of Queensland & Ors (No 2) [2020] QSC 174

    In these proceedings, the Australian Institute for Progress sought an order that the Electoral Commission of Queensland pay their costs despite the Institute being unsuccessful in their application for declaratory relief. The Institute argued that this case warranted departure from the general rule that costs follow the event because the proceedings were of public interest and provided useful commentary on the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld). Applegarth J held that there was no sufficient reason to depart from the general costs rule and the Institute was ordered to pay the Commission’s costs.

Commercial

  • Wagners Cement Pty Ltd & Anor v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QSC 124

    The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)), was examined by the court. This arose because there was a possibility that confidential information would be inadvertently disclosed at the conclusion of the trial. The court found it unnecessary to examine this right in depth as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but held that there will be circumstances where justice cannot be served if everything must be done in public.
  • Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor v Heslop & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC 256

    Westpac Bank claimed $329,034.48 from the first defendant (Mr Heslop), who was the guarantor of a debt in this amount. Mr Heslop alleged that Westpac and the second plaintiff (the Receiver) ‘breached Article 12 of the Human Rights Act’.

Criminal Law and Corrective Services

  • Attorney-General v Carter [2020] QSC 217

    Pursuant to section 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the Attorney-General applied to the court for either a continuing detention order or a supervision order in relation to the respondent, Carter, who was convicted of serious sexual offences. The court noted that supervision orders limit the right to liberty and freedom of movement contained in sections 29 and 19 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but that they did so to fulfil the statutory purpose of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) relating to  the safety of the community.
  • Boyy v Executive Director of Specialist Operations of Queensland Corrective Services [2019] QSC 283

    The right not to be tried or punished more than once (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 34) was argued by the applicant, but not considered by the court.
  • Crossman v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 122 and 123

    The self-represented applicant appealed against two convictions for driving over the prescribed speed limit, stating that the Magistrates who handed down the convictions had erred with respect to section 35 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which concerns the right to protection against retrospective criminal laws. During oral submissions, the Applicant abandoned this ground of appeal and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was not further mentioned in either of the proceedings.
  • Flowers v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1467

    Human rights breaches by the NSW Police were argued by the plaintiff, but the court considered the argument to be irrelevant to the case.
  • Johnson v Parole Board of Queensland [2020] QSC 108

    A prisoner applied for judicial review of the decision of the Parole Board of Queensland (‘the Board’) to refuse to grant his application for a parole order. Bradley J referenced the fact that, in reaching its decision, the Board must balance the legitimate competing interests of the applicant and the public, including the applicant’s common law and statutory right to liberty.
  • R v Logan [2020] QDCPR 67

    The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. In written submissions, Counsel for the applicant raised the applicant’s right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Horneman-Wren SC DCJ discussed the relevance of this right in the context of the application and ordered that the trial proceed on a judge alone basis.
  • R v Mitchell [2020] QDC 89

    The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
  • R v Morrison [2020] QCA 187

    The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by the District Court on the ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive.
  • R v NGK [2020] QDCPR 77

    The respondent applied for a no jury trial in circumstances where measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic had prevented all new jury trials from proceeding. The respondent raised the right to be tried without unreasonable delay in section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The court found that the appropriate consideration was whether the making of a no jury order was ‘in the interests of justice.’
  • Re JMT [2020] QSC 72

    This case concerned an application for bail for charges of murder and grievous bodily harm. The court briefly mentioned the rights of detained persons and the obligations the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) casts on the three branches of government, but there was no in-depth discussion as a human rights argument was not made by the applicant.
  • RTM v The Queen [2020] QDC 93

    The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it is in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 32(2)(c)) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
  • Volkers v The Queen [2020] QDC 25

    An application for a permanent stay of an indictment was brought by a former swimming coach on the basis of lack of fairness and oppression amounting to an abuse of process due to significant delay in proceedings. Reid DCJ found that the delay in prosecution of the accused since 2002 did amount to a breach of his right to a trial without unreasonable delay under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Discrimination

  • Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service & Ors [2020] QIRC 084

    The applicant relied upon the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association contained within section 22 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in seeking declaratory relief against the respondents. There was, however, no in-depth analysis of this provision provided in the Commission’s decision.
  • Tafao v State of Queensland [2020] QCATA 76

    A former prisoner applied for leave to appeal and appeal of a decision in which she experienced discrimination on the basis of her gender identity during her incarceration in a male prison. Pursuant to section 108, the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was found to not apply because the Tribunal’s decision was made prior to the commencement of the Act.
  • Taniela v Australian Christian College Moreton Ltd [2020] QCAT 249

    This case concerned a complaint made on behalf of five-year-old Cyrus Taniela that his school’s decision to discontinue his enrolment for the second semester of 2020, unless he cut his hair to satisfy the school’s uniform policy, amounted to discrimination on the basis of race and sex. The applicant also argued that several human rights provided for in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to the discrimination experienced by Cyrus: recognition and equality before the law (section 15); freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 20); the rights of children (section 26(2)); cultural rights (section 27); and the right to education (section 36). 

Education, Training and Employment

  • FBN v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 260

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of offences in relation to the possession of cannabis.
  • Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service & Ors [2020] QIRC 084

    The applicant relied upon the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association contained within section 22 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in seeking declaratory relief against the respondents. There was, however, no in-depth analysis of this provision provided in the Commission’s decision.
  • Health Ombudsman v ORC [2020] QCAT 181

    The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)) was noted by the Tribunal. It was ordered that due to delays in the matter, publication of materials which could identify the respondent was prohibited.
  • Storch v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 152

    The self-represented applicant argued that the respondent’s decision to issue him with a negative blue card notice, despite him being acquitted at trial of a charge of indecent treatment of a child, was a breach of several rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • Taniela v Australian Christian College Moreton Ltd [2020] QCAT 249

    This case concerned a complaint made on behalf of five-year-old Cyrus Taniela that his school’s decision to discontinue his enrolment for the second semester of 2020, unless he cut his hair to satisfy the school’s uniform policy, amounted to discrimination on the basis of race and sex. The applicant also argued that several human rights provided for in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to the discrimination experienced by Cyrus: recognition and equality before the law (section 15); freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 20); the rights of children (section 26(2)); cultural rights (section 27); and the right to education (section 36). 
  • WDE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 301

    This case concerned an application for administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of Schedule 2 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

Health, Mental Health and Guardianship

  • DLD [2020] QCAT 237

    The Tribunal considered the appointment of a suitable guardian and administrator for a woman experiencing impaired decision making as a result of  dementia.
  • GCS [2020] QCAT 206

    The Tribunal considered whether there was a need to appoint a guardian and administrator for GCS, an 89 year-old woman with impaired capacity. The Tribunal had regard to the interpretation provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (s 48), GCS’s property rights (s 24), freedom of movement (s 19), and right to privacy (s 45) when making its decision to appoint the Public Guardian to manage GCS’s affairs.
  • MJP [2020] QCAT 253

    The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal reviewed guardianship appointments for MJP, a young man who is unable to communicate decisions about his life.

Planning and Environment

Privacy and Confidentiality

  • FBN v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 260

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of offences in relation to the possession of cannabis.
  • Health Ombudsman v ORC [2020] QCAT 181

    The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)) was noted by the Tribunal. It was ordered that due to delays in the matter, publication of materials which could identify the respondent was prohibited.
  • IMM v Department of Housing and Public Works [2020] QCATA 73

    This case concerned the right to a fair hearing, particularly the right to have all judgments or decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available pursuant to section 31(3) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The applicant sought an order that his name be suppressed to protect his mental health, and the Tribunal ordered a non-publication order on this basis.
  • PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188

    A self-represented litigant sought judicial review after being issued a negative notice by Blue Card Services arguing that his case was ‘exceptional’. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal analysed limiting the applicant’s human rights and issued a non-publication order in light of the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)).
  • The State of Queensland through the Department of Housing and Public Works v Tenant [2020] QCAT 144

    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.
  • Wagners Cement Pty Ltd & Anor v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QSC 124

    The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)), was examined by the court. This arose because there was a possibility that confidential information would be inadvertently disclosed at the conclusion of the trial. The court found it unnecessary to examine this right in depth as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but held that there will be circumstances where justice cannot be served if everything must be done in public.
  • WDE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 301

    This case concerned an application for administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of Schedule 2 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

Public Law Considerations

  • Balemi v Ingles [2020] QCATA 58

    The right to a fair hearing (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31) is mentioned in the context of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), but there is no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
  • Du Preez v Chelden [2020] ICQ 008

    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.
  • The Australian Institute for Progress Ltd v The Electoral Commission of Queensland & Ors [2020] QSC 54

    A political think tank argued that provisions of the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) limited the freedom of expression and the right to take part in public life contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Applegarth J held that the limitations were proportionate and reasonable.
  • The State of Queensland through the Department of Housing and Public Works v Tenant [2020] QCAT 144

    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.
  • TRE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 306

    This case concerned a self-represented applicant seeking review of the respondent’s decision to issue her with a negative blue card notice.
  • Volkers v The Queen [2020] QDC 25

    An application for a permanent stay of an indictment was brought by a former swimming coach on the basis of lack of fairness and oppression amounting to an abuse of process due to significant delay in proceedings. Reid DCJ found that the delay in prosecution of the accused since 2002 did amount to a breach of his right to a trial without unreasonable delay under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • Wagners Cement Pty Ltd & Anor v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QSC 124

    The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)), was examined by the court. This arose because there was a possibility that confidential information would be inadvertently disclosed at the conclusion of the trial. The court found it unnecessary to examine this right in depth as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but held that there will be circumstances where justice cannot be served if everything must be done in public.

Tenancy and Social Housing

Case notes in alphabetical order

More publications and resources

Contact 

Please contact our group with any enquiries at humanrights@uq.edu.au.

Case Notes Disclaimer - These case notes are intended to provide summarised general information only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such.  If the subject matter of any case note relates to a transaction or matter of particular concern, you should seek your own independent formal legal advice from an admitted legal practitioner.  Please note, UQ does not offer legal services to the public.