Alphabetical listing of cases

The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. There is considerable litigation history between the parties. This particular case was a remitted hearing following a decision of the High Court in February 2021.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to vocational education (section 36), and cultural rights (section 27) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to proceedings.

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of the Queensland as guardian and administrator, respectively, for NHF, revoking a previous Enduring Power of Attorney.

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland as guardian and administrator respectively, for a 90-year-old adult male (‘NHI’). NHI was diagnosed with dementia of mixed aetiology (amidst other health concerns), when admitted to hospital after being found on the floor in his remote residence, where he lives alone. The Tribunal briefly considered relevant human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), discussing that statutory provisions must be interpreted to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, and in a way compatible with human rights.

This matter concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision made by the respondent that the appellant had not complied with the requirements of the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 by not receiving her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within the relevant time frame. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in an email to the respondent, where the appellant requested specific legislative references from relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that supported the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

This case concerned an application seeking appointment of the Public Guardian for approval of restrictive practice, containment and seclusion in a memory support unit for people who suffer dementia: at [3]. The Tribunal were satisfied that the decision to appoint the Public Guardian pursuant to s 12 of Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) for the personal matter of giving consent was compatible with the human rights.

This case concerned a review of a decision to issue the applicant with a negative notice for a Blue Card on the basis that he had a history of being violent. The decision to deny a Blue Card was ultimately upheld, the best interests of children taking priority over the applicant’s interests, which the tribunal stated was consistent with human rights considerations in the circumstances. There was no significant human rights discussion.

This matter concerned an application by a journalist for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to seek orders authorising the publication of information about guardianship proceedings in a way that identified the person to whom the application and orders were about.

The right to protection of families and children (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 26) was argued by the applicants and analysed by the court in the context of a foster child and his foster family. The court held that the term “family” was to be given a broad interpretation and understood in the society of a particular country.

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 noted that the limitation of human rights (section 13) and cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant.