Alphabetical listing of cases

This matter concerned an application filed by the respondent to dismiss the application made by the applicant (mother) to review a contact decision designed to facilitate contact between the applicant’s children. In the reasons for the decision, the Tribunal referred to the right to protection of families and children in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (sections 26(1) and (2)) to give context for the obligation to support the family and why the applicant was a person affected by the decision concerning contact with the child. The Tribunal did not engage in any substantive discussion of human rights. The respondent’s application to dismiss the applicant mother’s application was refused.

The appellant sought to challenge the outcome of a review of her employment status. Contained within the relevant policy directive was a provision acknowledging the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of the provision in the directive or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally. 

This case concerned a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to reject the applicant's renewal of her weapons licence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and their obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision to issue a negative notice for a Blue Card where the applicant had been convicted of breaching domestic violence orders, breaching a suspended sentence, breaching a probation order, failing to appear in accordance with undertaking, breaching bail conditions, possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence.

The applicant was issued with a negative Blue Card notice following his being charged with criminal offences related to an incident he described as a ‘prank’. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice and stated that the respondent had appropriately acknowledged and considered the applicant’s human rights.

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).    

The case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant on 6 April 2020. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that this was an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 221(1) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) was confirmed.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, SM. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply, as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The case concerned an application for leave to be legally represented. The Court considered that the applicant’s right to equal protection would not be compromised, and ultimately granted leave.

This case concerned an application for an order protecting the complainant’s interests. The applicant had lodged a discrimination complaint in relation to his employer, Queensland Health’s, decision not to employ him, which the applicant alleged was on the basis of his relationship with another doctor at that hospital.