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, ML. Member Ashman stated that ‘[t]he Tribunal must...consider the intent of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)’ but did not elaborate as to which specific considerations were relevant to this matter.

In her complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), the Applicant referred to employees of Legal Aid Queensland. Legal Aid Queensland made an application seeking suppression orders within these proceedings, citing the right to privacy and reputation contained in section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

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.

This matter concerned multiple issues arising out of a guardianship application for MTC. MTC’s children SNB, SNE and DTA sought to replace the Public Trustee as MTC’s guardian and administrator, subject to a loan dispute with MTC’s other child, SND, being resolved. The Tribunal recognised that the appointment of an ongoing administrator would impact MTC’s property rights under section 24 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), noting that although the appointment of administrator does not deprive an adult of their ownership of property, it does remove their control over the property.

This matter concerned an application to appoint a guardian and administrator for MTD under an interim order because of capacity concerns. The Tribunal found that limits on MTD’s freedom of movement (section 19) and right to privacy and reputation (section 25) that would result from an interim order, were not reasonable and justified in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The applicant sought a review of the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to mandatorily cancel his Visa as he did not pass the character test prescribed in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in a report by Queensland Corrective Services where they said they had considered the applicant’s human rights when determining that he required the level of structured supervision afforded to prisoners managed as high security.

This application concerned the appointment of a guardian and administrator for MXQ, the making of a confidentiality order, and the making of orders limiting information sharing with particular individuals.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision refusing parole. The applicant had been sentenced on two occasions after being found guilty of offences of torture, rape, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, deprivation of liberty, common assault and possession of dangerous drugs.

This matter concerned a successful application made by Mr Anthony Ferry ('the First Respondent') and the State of Queensland, through the Department of Employment, Small Business and Training ('the Second Respondent') for leave to be given to be legally represented before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

The case concerned a decision to substantiate an allegation by the Respondent against the Applicant in circumstances where the Applicant was a Queensland Health employee and had contravened a direction to provide evidence of her COVID-19 vaccination.