Alphabetical listing of cases

McLennan IC considered whether the interference with the complainant's right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified in granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.

McLennan IC considered interference with the complainant's right to privacy and confidentiality under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified when granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.

This case considered whether Griffith University and two of its employees victimised or directly discriminated against the applicant on the basis of her impairment, family responsibilities and political beliefs. The Tribunal noted that proceeding to a final decision ‘on the papers’ appropriately balanced each party’s right to a fair hearing under section 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The decision relates to a man in his mid-60s with alcoholic dementia, PGV, who applied to the Tribunal for a declaration about his capacity and a revocation of the appointment of his guardians. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right not to be treated in a degrading way (section 17) and his right to freedom of movement (section 19) in the context of determining whether a guardian should continue to be appointed.

This matter concerned an appeal against a suspension without pay decision. The appellant claimed that the Queensland Police Service had not acted with proper consideration of her human rights when it issued a notice of suspension after she declined a second COVID-19 vaccination. The Commission found that the notice addressed human rights in detail and that the appellant’s human rights had been considered. There was no substantive discussion of human rights in the reasons. The decision appealed against was confirmed.

This matter concerned the appeal of a decision made by the respondent to transfer the appellant to a new managerial position. The respondent claimed that the transfer was made due to ‘complex difficulties’ in the workplace, mental or physical illness or disability caused by work and an account from a medical practitioner that the appellant’s workplace issues were the source of their health issues.

A self-represented litigant sought judicial review after being issued a negative notice by Blue Card Services arguing that his case was ‘exceptional’. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal analysed limiting the applicant’s human rights and issued a non-publication order in light of the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)).

This case concerned applications for the removal of PL, PJ’s mother, as guardian and administrator of PJ, and the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal briefly considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and was satisfied that the limits imposed by the guardianship order were reasonable and justified in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for a 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, but did not consider in detail, the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). The Tribunal also noted the right of children to the protection needed because of being a child (section 26(2)).

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal affirmed the Respondent’s decision. Although the Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), there was no genuine consideration of the rights of the applicant that were engaged or may be limited.