Alphabetical listing of cases

This case involved an appeal of the Tribunal’s decision that a contract between the two parties was frustrated as a result of COVID-19 government restrictions. The Tribunal recognised that it was bound by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and that a person has a right to have a civil proceeding decided by a court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing (section 31).

This case concerned an appeal premised on the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt (section 32(2)(k)). After consideration of a number of provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Court ultimately found that the grounds of appeal could not be made out as the limitation imposed upon said rights was justified (section 13).

An application for the review of a negative blue card notice was brought by a full-time truck driver. Member Taylor found that, as the applicant had been convicted of a serious offence in 2004, as defined in the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), a negative notice must be issued unless an exceptional case exists in which it would not harm the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to be issued.

The applicant in this case applied for an administrative review of a decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether his case was an “exceptional case” in which it was not in the best interests of children for the applicant to hold a blue card.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the Applicant’s changed circumstances were sufficient to warrant the case as exceptional such that a negative notice should be issued.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ST. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s right to privacy (section 25), right to taking part in public life (section 23), right to protection of families and children (section 26), right to education (section 36), cultural rights (section 27) and cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.

The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].

The self-represented applicant argued that the respondent’s decision to issue him with a negative blue card notice, despite him being acquitted at trial of a charge of indecent treatment of a child, was a breach of several rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This matter concerned an appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

This matter concerned an application for exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) concerning a proposed policy with the effect of allowing the applicant to grant permits to conduct certain tourism businesses on Council land solely to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.