Human Rights case notes - Law School - University of Queensland

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

The UQ/Caxton 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 Pro Bono Centre) and Bridget Burton (Caxton Legal Centre).

Current team members are: Laura Rowswell (Student Leader), Liisa Kuru (Assistant Leader), Rory Brown, Ben Cornwell, Carolyn Farago, Laura Hall, Anouk Hendriks, Thorida Kim, Sophie Little, Kano Nawagawa, Max Punin, Hannah Retief, Genevieve Rule, Imogen Ryan-Kerr, and Georgia Williams.

Many thanks to our founding members: Elizabeth Aisi, Linden Peacock and Tulli Seton.

Case notes are available by keyword below and in alphabetical order.

Case notes by keyword

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

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.
ABD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 57

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal stated that it had considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and concluded that its decision did not unreasonably compromise any of the human rights affected.
AM v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6

The Tribunal set aside a decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General and found that the applicant’s case was not ‘exceptional’ in relation to his application for a positive notice for a blue card.
BE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 498

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, BE. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
BPM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 286

This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as it was mentioned in submissions, however, did not substantively discuss these rights.
CA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2022] QCAT 305

The case concerned a negative blue card notice to an applicant convicted of assault offences arising from an altercation in March 2019. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant’s case was an exceptional case. The Tribunal acknowledged that the human rights of the applicant to ‘privacy and reputation’, to ‘take part in public life’ and ‘to further vocational education and training’ would be affected by the decision.
CA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 452

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, CA, due to his lengthy criminal history. In conducting its review, Member Fitzpatrick had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
CDC v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General ([2021]) QCAT 112

The applicant sought a review of a decision to issue her a negative notice in response to an application for a blue card. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply, as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Coonan v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2020] QCAT 434

This case involved an application for review of a decision made by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to register the parent who gave birth to his child as the child’s ‘mother’, in circumstances where that parent identifies as male. The Tribunal briefly considered the right to recognition and equality before the law, the right to privacy and reputation and the right to protection of families and children (sections 15, 25 and 16 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) but ultimately decided that as the proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), it was not applicable.
CSG v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 412

This case concerned an application for review of a decision by the respondent to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, on the basis the applicant’s case was ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening Act 2000 (Qld).

Pages

Brisbane Marine Pilots Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v General Manager of Maritime Safety Queensland, Department of Transport and Main Roads and Ors (costs) [2022] QCAT 225

This case concerned an application for a costs order. The Court briefly discussed human rights but did not apply these principles to the matter at hand.
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.
Hutchison v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 317

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).
Johnston & Ors v Carroll (APM, Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service) [2022] QSC 115

The case concerned whether legal professional privilege had been waived for the purpose of a subpoena requiring production of legal advice that had been issued by the applicant. Evidence was given in cross examination that a legal advice had given sufficient comfort that the direction would be compatible with human rights. The Court considered that privilege had been waived. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.
Kremastos v Councillor Conduct Tribunal & Anor [2022] QCAT 319

The case concerned an application by non-parties requesting an order to be added as parties and an order that material provided by them be considered in a review of a decision of the Councillor Conduct Tribunal that substantiated a finding of misconduct against a former councillor.
Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237

This case concerned the application for an order of a reportable death under the Coroners Act 2003. The jurisdiction of the District Court derives from section 11A of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld), which provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the State Coroner’s decision may apply for an order about whether it is a reportable death. The court did not engage in any substantive discussion regarding the Human Rights Act 2019; however, it was noted that the decision was found to be compatible with and to satisfy any operative provision of the Human Rights Act 2019.
Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 352

McLennan IC considered interference with the complainant's right to privacy and confidentiality under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified when granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.
R v CMA [2022] QDCPR 56

Following their indictment before the Court in respect of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care, this case concerned an application by the defendant for leave to subpoena ‘protected counselling communication’ records and information; and produce to the court, adduce evidence of or otherwise ‘use protected counselling communication’; and otherwise disclose, inspect or copy a ‘protected counselling communication’.
R v WTS [2022] QDCPR 57

This case concerned an application of the defendant to subpoena documents or records from an organisation that provided counselling services and support to a child complainant. Accordingly and on behalf of the defendant, an objection was raised as to the standing of the counselled child to be heard under criteria in s 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Long SC DCJ allowed the objection of the defendant to the counselled child being allowed leave to be heard, upon the broad basis on which the application had been sought. Sections 25 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were mentioned in the header, but there was no discussion of human rights.
Sandy’s Swim Pty Ltd v Morgan [2022] QDC 131

The case concerned a claim for damages of a breach of lease regarding a swimming pool. The plaintiff in his written submissions asserted that his right to fair hearing had been breached by the defendant’s solicitors through failing to facilitate the litigation proceeding expeditiously and at a minimum of expense. There was no direct engagement by the Court with human rights considerations.

Pages

Body Corporate for the Lakes-Cairns CTS 28090 v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 39

The applicant was the principal body corporate for a layered community title scheme comprised of 18 subsidiary body corporates. The respondent was a service contractor under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1999 (Qld).
Reef House Property Pty Ltd & Ors v Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation & Anor [2021] QCAT 383

The applicant sought a stay of a decision from the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation to approve a commercial hotel licence application of MFB Properties (NQ) Pty Ltd for a premises at Palm Cove. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned by the Tribunal, acknowledging that they have taken into account the potential human rights impacted in their decision.
Tamarin Pty Ltd & Otmoor Pty Ltd as Trustee v Wicks [2021] QCATA 146

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.
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’.

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haynes [2020] QSC 348

The Attorney-General applied for a supervision order pursuant to ss 13(5)(b) and 16 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) in relation to the respondent, who was convicted of serious sexual offences. The court noted the respondent’s right to a fair hearing (s 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) when considering the appellant’s submissions, which were not considered further.
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.
Baggaley v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] QCA 179

This case concerned an appeal against a decision of Flanagan J in April 2020 to refuse the appellant’s application for bail. The appellant argued that his detention was arbitrary and unlawful and that he had the right to a trial without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 29(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Baggaley v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] QCA 179

This case concerned an appeal against a decision of Flanagan J in April 2020 to refuse the appellant’s application for bail. The appellant argued that his detention was arbitrary and unlawful and that he had the right to a trial without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 29(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
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.
Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v MAP [2022] QCATA 34

This case concerned an appeal of a previous Tribunal decision to set aside a decision of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to issue a negative blue card notice, and replace it with the decision that the applicant’s case was not an exceptional case. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time of the original proceedings so it did not apply. The matter was returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.
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.
Isles v State of Queensland [2021] QCAT 135

The applicant applied to the Tribunal claiming that the Queensland Police Service were directly discriminating against him by placing alerts, warnings and flags on his personal profile on their internal database. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was held not to apply as the events in question occurred prior to its commencement. The Tribunal noted that the evidence did not meet the standard required to make any findings of a contravention of human rights.
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.

Pages

Bowie v Queensland Police Service and Ors [2022] QLC 8

The Court dismissed an application for a number of orders under the Land Court Act 2000 (Qld). In doing so, the Court found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had no bearing on the Queensland Police Service’s execution of a lawfully granted warrant of possession.
Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14

The case concerned an application for a mining lease. The Court briefly discussed its obligation to properly consider human rights, although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had commenced after objections had been lodged. The Court then provided an outline of the submissions that the applicants had made on human rights, but did not make any further remarks. The objections were addressed so as not to preclude a grant of the mining lease, but a number of steps still preceded its possible grant.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21

The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. The Court provided a detailed consideration of the mine’s human rights impacts through its contribution to climate change, and effect on the surrounding area. The Court ultimately concluded that the limitations to human rights imposed by the mine were unjustifiable.
Accoom v Pickering [2020] QSC 388

This case concerned an application for orders regarding a family dispute over the burial location of a deceased Indigenous man. Justice Henry noted that section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) did not affect the Court’s usual approach to resolving these types of cases as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customs have always been considered.

BB v State of Queensland & Ors [2020] QCAT 496

The Tribunal considered whether a school directly discriminated against a student, on the basis of his impairment. The Tribunal noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply in this case as the legislation commenced after the relevant events took place. Nonetheless, it found no evidence to suggest that the student’s human rights had been contravened.
Coonan v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2020] QCAT 434

This case involved an application for review of a decision made by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to register the parent who gave birth to his child as the child’s ‘mother’, in circumstances where that parent identifies as male. The Tribunal briefly considered the right to recognition and equality before the law, the right to privacy and reputation and the right to protection of families and children (sections 15, 25 and 16 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) but ultimately decided that as the proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), it was not applicable.
Dean-Braieoux v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 209

This case concerned an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made under section 175 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) requiring the applicant to submit to a medical examination.
Fernwood Womens Health Clubs (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] QCAT 164

The applicant sought an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to operate their fitness clubs exclusively for female members, and to be run exclusively by female staff. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in reference to whether granting this exemption placed a reasonable and demonstrably justifiable limit on the right to recognition and equality before the law.
Frost v State of Queensland & Ors [2020] QCATA 144

This case concerned an application for a stay order to be issued in respect of a non-publication order of the Tribunal. Taking into account the respondents’ right to protection of their reputations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal refused the application.
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.
Isles v State of Queensland [2021] QCAT 135

The applicant applied to the Tribunal claiming that the Queensland Police Service were directly discriminating against him by placing alerts, warnings and flags on his personal profile on their internal database. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was held not to apply as the events in question occurred prior to its commencement. The Tribunal noted that the evidence did not meet the standard required to make any findings of a contravention of human rights.
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.
Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 352

McLennan IC considered interference with the complainant's right to privacy and confidentiality under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified when granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.
Petrak v Griffith University & Ors [2020] QCAT 351

This case considered whether Griffith University and two of its employees victimised or directly discriminated against the applicant on the basis of her impairment, family responsibilities and political beliefs. The Tribunal noted that proceeding to a final decision ‘on the papers’ appropriately balanced each party’s right to a fair hearing under section 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v MAP [2022] QCATA 34

This case concerned an appeal of a previous Tribunal decision to set aside a decision of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to issue a negative blue card notice, and replace it with the decision that the applicant’s case was not an exceptional case. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time of the original proceedings so it did not apply. The matter was returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.
MAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 527

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MAP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to the duties it imposed upon the Tribunal, and the relevance of the right not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) to the operation of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
ED v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 56

This case concerned an application to review the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant, ED. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned only in reference to the Tribunal being a public entity and therefore obligated to make decisions compatible with human rights under section 58.
ABD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 57

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal stated that it had considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and concluded that its decision did not unreasonably compromise any of the human rights affected.
DL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General ([2021]) QCAT 61

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the working with children clearance and blue card of the applicant, DL, and to issue a negative notice in its place. This decision meant the applicant could no longer continue to work as a foster carer. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and to take part in public life (section 23), as well as the right to protection of families and children (section 26), and the Tribunal’s own role as a public entity under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
SF v Department of Education [2021] QCAT 10

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).
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.

AM v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6

The Tribunal set aside a decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General and found that the applicant’s case was not ‘exceptional’ in relation to his application for a positive notice for a blue card.
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.
Basnayake v TAFE Queensland [2022] QIRC 444

This case concerned an appeal of a decision to extend the appellant’s fixed term temporary employment and to not permanently appoint her based on genuine operational requirements.
BB v State of Queensland & Ors [2020] QCAT 496

The Tribunal considered whether a school directly discriminated against a student, on the basis of his impairment. The Tribunal noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply in this case as the legislation commenced after the relevant events took place. Nonetheless, it found no evidence to suggest that the student’s human rights had been contravened.
BE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 498

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, BE. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 292

This case concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to refuse to exempt the appellant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.
BJ [2022] QCAT 326

This case concerned an application to the Tribunal, seeking authorisation to share information about former guardianship proceedings concerning BJ with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and a News Media company.
Campbell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 405

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from her duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements.
Cervenjak v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice & Multicultural Affairs) [2022] QIRC 363

This case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary findings decision and suspension without pay decision due to non-compliance with the COVID-19 vaccination requirement policy.
Chinniah v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 186

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to refuse to convert the appellant’s employment from an AO5 Deployment Officer to an AO6 Senior Deployment Officer where she had been effectively acting at the higher level since August 2018.

Pages

ADU [2021] QCAT 70

This matter concerned the replacement of ADU’s enduring power of attorney for personal and health matters with the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to ADU’s right to freedom of expression, right to a fair hearing and the circumstances in which a human right may be limited.
ADW [2021] QCAT 453

This matter concerned an interim order application for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator. The Tribunal referred generally to the imperative under section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to not restrict rights and freedoms except where that is demonstrably justified.
BCC [2021] QCAT 123

This matter concerned an application to appoint a guardian and administrator for BCC because of capacity and mental health concerns. The Tribunal noted that section 13(2)(d) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was engaged when considering the need to appoint a decision-maker once the presumption of capacity had been rebutted.
BJ [2022] QCAT 326

This case concerned an application to the Tribunal, seeking authorisation to share information about former guardianship proceedings concerning BJ with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and a News Media company.
BLK [2022] QCAT 222

This matter concerned an interim order application for the appointment of a guardian. The Tribunal noted that a successful interim application would frequently affect the adult’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), such as their right to freedom of movement (section 19).
CC [2020] QCAT 367

This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee as guardian and administrator respectively for CC in circumstances where his sister had nominated herself for those roles. In making an order that the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee continue in their roles for the next five years, Member Allen held that this was a reasonable limitation on CC’s human rights and there were no less restrictive means available.
CTR [2022] QCAT 368

The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee as guardian and administrator respectively for CTR, in circumstances where it was accepted that the limits imposed by this order were reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on CTR’s right to privacy (section 25), freedom of movement (section 19) and property rights (section 24).
DAMA v Public Guardian [2020] QCATA 161

This case concerned an application for a stay of the operation of orders made by the Tribunal in relation to guardianship proceedings arising from a dispute between DAMA and DEA, the attorneys for DA. The Tribunal recognised that section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provides for the right not to have a person’s privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, but noted that human rights may be subject to reasonable limitation.
DKM [2020] QCAT 441

This case arose from an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM. During proceedings, the Tribunal initiated an application for a confidentiality order concerning a photograph of DKM.
DKM [2020] QCAT 443

The Tribunal heard an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM.

Pages

Bowie v Queensland Police Service and Ors [2022] QLC 8

The Court dismissed an application for a number of orders under the Land Court Act 2000 (Qld). In doing so, the Court found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had no bearing on the Queensland Police Service’s execution of a lawfully granted warrant of possession.
Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14

The case concerned an application for a mining lease. The Court briefly discussed its obligation to properly consider human rights, although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had commenced after objections had been lodged. The Court then provided an outline of the submissions that the applicants had made on human rights, but did not make any further remarks. The objections were addressed so as not to preclude a grant of the mining lease, but a number of steps still preceded its possible grant.
Optus Mobile Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Ors [2020] QPEC 15

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) raised by first co-respondent by election but not considered by the court.
Reef House Property Pty Ltd & Ors v Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation & Anor [2021] QCAT 383

The applicant sought a stay of a decision from the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation to approve a commercial hotel licence application of MFB Properties (NQ) Pty Ltd for a premises at Palm Cove. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned by the Tribunal, acknowledging that they have taken into account the potential human rights impacted in their decision.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 5) [2022] QLC 4

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd (Waratah) sought a mining lease and authorisation to mine thermal coal in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. This hearing concerned an application for an order to take evidence from First Nations witnesses on country. The Court balanced the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples under section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) against the public and private interests of minimising the inconvenience and cost of litigation. The Court held that refusing the application for on country evidence was not reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in the circumstances of the case.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21

The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. The Court provided a detailed consideration of the mine’s human rights impacts through its contribution to climate change, and effect on the surrounding area. The Court ultimately concluded that the limitations to human rights imposed by the mine were unjustifiable.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors [2020] QLC 33

The respondents presented objections to Waratah’s application for a mining lease and an environmental authority to build a coal mine in the Galilee Basin. They relied on sections of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their objections. These objections were referred to the Land Court.

Doedens v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 263

This matter concerned appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process associated therewith: at [13]. The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable: at [14].
Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215

This matter concerned an appeal brought by an employee of Queensland Health against a decision made by the respondent pursuant to the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 – Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements (‘the Directive’).
AM v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6

The Tribunal set aside a decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General and found that the applicant’s case was not ‘exceptional’ in relation to his application for a positive notice for a blue card.
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.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21

The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. The Court provided a detailed consideration of the mine’s human rights impacts through its contribution to climate change, and effect on the surrounding area. The Court ultimately concluded that the limitations to human rights imposed by the mine were unjustifiable.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 5) [2022] QLC 4

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd (Waratah) sought a mining lease and authorisation to mine thermal coal in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. This hearing concerned an application for an order to take evidence from First Nations witnesses on country. The Court balanced the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples under section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) against the public and private interests of minimising the inconvenience and cost of litigation. The Court held that refusing the application for on country evidence was not reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in the circumstances of the case.
Health Ombudsman v Raynor [2021] QCAT 25

The Tribunal was tasked with considering an application for a prohibition order against a self-represented respondent who provided massage and therapy services despite not being a registered health practitioner. The respondent made human rights submissions including the right to freedom of expression (section 21 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) and right to protection against retrospective criminal laws (section 35 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)), and the Tribunal noted the balance of these rights with other legislation.
EH v Queensland Police Service; GS v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 205

The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 22) in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was briefly mentioned by Fantin DCJ in Her Honour’s reasons for allowing an appeal and resentencing the two appellants in circumstances where the original sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246

The Attorney-General sought urgent injunctions to restrain the second, third and fourth respondents from attending or encouraging others to attend a planned protest which included a sit-in on the Story Bridge planned for 8 August 2020.
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.

AA v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations) [2021] QCAT 258

This case concerned a privacy complaint made against the State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations). The Tribunal did not consider the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as the Tribunal was exercising its original jurisdiction.
Angelopoulos v Silkwire Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QCAT 52

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.
BJ [2022] QCAT 326

This case concerned an application to the Tribunal, seeking authorisation to share information about former guardianship proceedings concerning BJ with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and a News Media company.
DKM [2020] QCAT 441

This case arose from an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM. During proceedings, the Tribunal initiated an application for a confidentiality order concerning a photograph of DKM.
DKM [2020] QCAT 443

The Tribunal heard an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM.
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.
Frost v State of Queensland & Ors [2020] QCATA 144

This case concerned an application for a stay order to be issued in respect of a non-publication order of the Tribunal. Taking into account the respondents’ right to protection of their reputations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal refused the application.
Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14

The case concerned an application for a mining lease. The Court briefly discussed its obligation to properly consider human rights, although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had commenced after objections had been lodged. The Court then provided an outline of the submissions that the applicants had made on human rights, but did not make any further remarks. The objections were addressed so as not to preclude a grant of the mining lease, but a number of steps still preceded its possible grant.
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.
HFI [2020] QCAT 481

This case concerned an application for a confidentiality order, protecting personal information that the Tribunal held pertaining to HFI. In making this confidentiality order, Member Goodman recognised that any infringement of HFI’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were reasonably justified in order to prevent serious harm to HFI.

Pages

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.
Angelopoulos v Silkwire Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QCAT 52

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.
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.
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.
Brown v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 312

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to refuse to exempt the appellant from COVID-19 vaccination requirements on the basis of a genuinely held religious belief.
Campbell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 405

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from her duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements.
Clarke v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 415

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to revoke the applicant’s weapons license. The Tribunal upheld the decision on the grounds that the applicant was no longer a fit and proper person to hold such a license.
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 018

On appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, the appellant sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to suspend her employment without remuneration after she refused to comply with Direction No. 12 that mandated the COVID-19 vaccination for the health and safety of members of the Queensland Police Service.
Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215

This matter concerned an appeal brought by an employee of Queensland Health against a decision made by the respondent pursuant to the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 – Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements (‘the Directive’).
Doedens v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 263

This matter concerned appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process associated therewith: at [13]. The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable: at [14].

Pages

Angelopoulos v Silkwire Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QCAT 52

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.
Horizon Housing Company v Ross [2020] QCAT 41

An application for the termination of a community housing lease was brought by a Housing Officer on the ground that the lessee would not leave the property. Human rights were considered, but not discussed in detail by the tribunal.
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.
Tamarin Pty Ltd & Otmoor Pty Ltd as Trustee v Wicks [2021] QCATA 146

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 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.

Human Rights Case Law Project

Case notes by keyword

Children and Families

Pages

Civil Procedure

Pages

Commercial

Criminal Law and Corrective Services

Pages

Cultural rights

Discrimination

Pages

Domestic violence

Education, Training and Employment

Pages

Health, Mental Health and Guardianship

Pages

Planning and Environment

Political freedoms

Privacy and Confidentiality

Pages

Public Law Considerations

Pages

Tenancy and Social Housing

Annual report

Contact

Disclaimer

UQ Law research

Connect with our researchers

Online resources

Research groups