Alphabetical listing of cases

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

This case concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ISC. The respondent’s decision was made on the grounds that he was convicted in UK for the offence of negligent manslaughter and additionally on the grounds of alleged bullying whilst he was working as a sports coach.

The case concerned a challenge to directions of the Chief Health Officer (CHO) under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which came about because the applicants' requested reasons for the making of the decisions to make the relevant directions. The CHO refused to give reasons on the basis that his decision to make the directions was of a legislative character, not an administrative character, and that therefore he was not obliged to give reasons. The Court agreed with the CHO. There was no discussion of human rights.

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.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JB. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision. Although the Tribunal noted the importance of considering the right to the protection of children, it was satisfied that any limitations on JB’s human rights were justified in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There was no substantive discussion of human rights.

This case concerned an application for 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 considered the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2) and cultural rights (sections 27-28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This decision concerned an interlocutory application regarding matters of civil procedure arising from defamation proceedings that were yet to be determined. The applicant sought to have their name anonymised in the court’s published reasons.

The applicant was coaching children at a community-based sporting organisation when his blue card was cancelled based on new information affecting his criminal record. He had a criminal history relating to supply and possession of drugs. He sought a review of the negative notice.

The case concerned an appeal of finding and disciplinary decisions concerning five allegations associated with an alleged failure to comply with a workplace directive to wear a facemask.

This case concerned an application for an interim order that the Public Trustee be appointed for all financial matters for JF. 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 recognised the making of an interim order for guardianship was ‘a serious incursion on a person’s human rights’.