Human Rights case notes - Law School - University of Queensland

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 Pro Bono Centre) and Bridget Burton (Caxton Legal Centre).

Current team members are: Laura Rowswell (Student Leader), Liisa Kuru (Assistant Leader), Ben Cornwell, Emma Kendall, Carolyn Farago, Genevieve Rule, 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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
Dowling v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 340

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Satisfied that its decision was compatible with these rights, the Tribunal ordered the respondent’s decision to be set aside and replaced.
DTH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 107

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, DTH. As the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time proceedings began, it was not considered in any depth.

Pages

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.

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

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.
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.
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).
River Glen Haven Over 50s Village [2021] QCAT 26

This case concerned age discrimination pertaining to an application for an exemption from section 127 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The company in question had in its trading name ‘over 50s village’ which was found to contravene this section. Given this finding, the Tribunal did not engage in an analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) despite submissions by the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
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).
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.

Pages

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.
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).

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).
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.
Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service & Ors [2021] QIRC 255

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.
Hansen v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2021] QIRC 162

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert his employment to a higher classification level. The appellant submitted to the Commission that he should have been treated by the respondent in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.
HAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 273

This case concerned an administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of four breaches of the Weapons Act 1900 (Qld).
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.
Herbert v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 415

This case concerned an appeal of a decision to reject a conversion to a higher classification position under the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld). In submissions, the respondent decision-maker had noted that, as required by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the appellant’s human rights had been considered, particularly the right to work embodied in article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There was no substantive discussion of human rights nor the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by the Commission.
Ingram v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2021] QIRC 011

This case concerned an appeal against a decision to not convert the appellant to a higher employment classification. The obligation imposed by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on public entities to consider human rights when making decisions was referenced within the relevant departmental directive, but there was no in-depth analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
EB [2021] QCAT 434

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.
FH [2020] QCAT 482

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian to make decisions regarding legal matters for FH. Member Traves recognised that the Tribunal was a public entity acting in an administrative capacity within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and was required to consider the Act when making such an order.
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.

Pages

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
HM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 13

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, HM. The Tribunal considered whether its decision was compatible with the applicant’s rights to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the rights of children to necessary protection that is in their best interests (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and concluded that its decision promotes and is compatible with human rights.
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.
MK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 62

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MK. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant's right to take part in public life (section 23), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)), under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

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.
EB [2021] QCAT 434

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.
Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service & Ors [2021] QIRC 255

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.
HE [2022] QCAT 34

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.
Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 1) [2020] QSC 273; Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC 293; Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 3) [2020] QSC 320

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).
LN & Anor v LSS & Ors [2020] QCATA 18

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.
Owen-D’Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273

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.
Spedding Estates Pty Ltd ATF The Spedding Family Trust v Cotterill & Downie [2022] QCATA 3

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).
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.

Pages

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.
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

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