• NTT v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 120

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s submissions that contended the grant of an earlier Notice to Produce was a breach of the rights to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to a fair hearing (section 31) pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal otherwise said it considered the applicant’s human rights submissions but that any limitation was justified, without providing reasoning.
  • 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.
  • OSL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 266

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal referred to its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), recognised that the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) was engaged but did not substantively consider any limitation or provide justification for its conclusion that any limitations on the rights of the applicant were justified.
  • Oss v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 155

    The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to impose a disciplinary penalty which reduced her classification from Clinical Nurse (NG6) to Registered Nurse (NG5).
  • Ostopowicz v Redland City Council [2022] QCAT 136

    The Applicant brought a claim against the Respondent Council and alleged that the Council had indirectly discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities in not providing sufficient car parking arrangements. The Tribunal determined that the Council’s term requiring people using the car park to park in accordance with regulated signage was reasonable in all the circumstances, such that there had been no indirect discrimination.
  • 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.  
  • Palmer Leisure Coolum Pty Ltd v Magistrates Court of Queensland & Ors; Palmer v Magistrates Court of Queensland & Ors [2022] QSC 227

    This case concerned an application for a stay of proceedings by the Commonwealth defendants regarding the proceedings brought by the plaintiff. By application, the plaintiffs, Palmer Leisure Coolum Pty Ltd and Clive Palmer, sought an order that would result in a summary judgment for criminal prosecutions involving a breach of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).
  • Parent v Matthew Flinders Anglican College and Stuart Meade [2023] QCAT 42

    This case concerned an application for an interim order to prohibit the respondent from restricting the applicant’s communications with Matthew Flinders Anglican College or their staff, pending resolution of a discrimination complaint before the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
  • Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237

    This case concerned the application for an order of a reportable death under the Coroners Act 2003. The jurisdiction of the District Court derives from section 11A of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld), which provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the State Coroner’s decision may apply for an order about whether it is a reportable death. The court did not engage in any substantive discussion regarding the Human Rights Act 2019; however, it was noted that the decision was found to be compatible with and to satisfy any operative provision of the Human Rights Act 2019.
  • PC [2022] QCAT 147

    This case concerned a review of an application seeking to appoint the Public Advocate as guardian and the Public Trustee as administrator for PC by DB (PC’s carer and long-time friend and partner) and to remove a 2001 enduring power of attorney appointing PC’s daughters.

Pages

Contact 

Please contact our group with any enquiries at humanrights@uq.edu.au.

Disclaimer

These case notes are intended to provide summarised general information only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such.  If the subject matter of any case note relates to a transaction or matter of particular concern, you should seek your own independent formal legal advice from an admitted legal practitioner.  Please note, UQ does not offer legal services to the public.