Alphabetical listing of cases

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JR. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal noted section 13(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and held that any limitation on JR’s human rights were consistent with giving primary consideration to the interests of children.

This case concerned the decision of the appointment for the position of public guardian and administrator of JSC where there were separate applications by both the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as well as the Mother and Grandmother of JSC. In making an order that the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee be appointed these roles pending a review in three years, the Tribunal considered JSC’s right to privacy (section 25), freedom of movement (section 19), property rights (section 24) and protection from being subjected to medical treatment without her full, free and informed consent.

This case concerned an application to the Tribunal to review the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s positive notice and issue her with a negative notice, following a change to the applicant’s police information. In reviewing the decision, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), and cultural rights (sections 27 and 28) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal also had regard to the competing right of every child to ‘the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child’ as provided for in s 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This matter concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for KAN. KAN had acquired significant disabilities at birth due to hospital negligence and a $5,000,000 compromise settlement of his medical negligence claim had been held and managed by a court-appointed trustee while he was a minor.

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s (Queensland Police Service) decision to suspend the applicant without pay due to her failure to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. The applicant submitted that the decision maker had exercised their discretionary power for an improper purpose in choosing to weigh the balance in favour of the relevant Direction, rather than her human rights: at [40]. The Commission noted that section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) made it clear that rights are not absolute and allowed to be limited: at [41].

The appellant filed an appeal against a decision to not convert their employment to a higher classification level. Contained within a relevant policy directive was an acknowledgement of the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of this provision or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally. 

The case concerned an application for leave to file an amended application for review of various administrative decisions under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). The Tribunal considered that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as it does not affect proceedings commenced before 1 January 2020.

This matter concerned an application for the appointment of the applicant's son as her administrator as her appointed attorneys sought leave to resign. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s capacity to revoke the appointment and her capacity for financial decisions.

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.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card, following receipt of information that the applicant’s kinship carer certificate had been cancelled following findings that he had failed to protect a child in his care from sexual abuse by an adult member of the household.