Alphabetical listing of cases

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, REB, due to a previous conviction for contravening a Protection Order naming his former partner and her children.

The applicant sought a stay of a decision from the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming Regulation to approve a commercial hotel licence application of MFB Properties (NQ) Pty Ltd for a premises at Palm Cove. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned by the Tribunal, acknowledging that they have taken into account the potential human rights impacted in their decision.

This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian for REN where his daughter (RAD) and nephew (SR) nominated themselves as prospective guardians. In making an order that RAD and SR be appointed as guardians, Member McDonald acknowledged the limitations on REN’s human rights, concluding they were both reasonable and necessary.

The case concerned an application for interim orders seeking urgent cessation of the Public Trustee of Queensland’s appointment as administrator for RFJ for all financial decisions except for day-to-day finances and Centrelink payments. In dismissing the application, the Tribunal acknowledged the ongoing appointment would limit RFJ’s right to freedom of movement (s 19), property rights (s 24), the right to privacy and reputation (s 25), and the right to liberty and security of person (s 29) but was satisfied the limits were reasonable and justified, particularly in the absence of urgent and compelling evidence to counter the initial appointment.

This was an appeal relating to a commercial dispute regarding refund fees for a pilot aptitude test: at [6]. The Tribunal ‘had in mind’ the right to a fair hearing both as a matter of procedural fairness and natural justice, and under section 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [98]. The requirement imposed by section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), to only limit this right to the extent that is reasonably justifiable, was noted. However, there was no substantive discussion of human rights by the Tribunal.

This case concerned age discrimination pertaining to an application for an exemption from section 127 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The company in question had in its trading name ‘over 50s village’ which was found to contravene this section. Given this finding, the Tribunal did not engage in an analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) despite submissions by the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

The case concerned an appeal of an internal review decision to uphold conditions preventing the appellant from returning to work while holding an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination. The original decision maker acknowledged that the decision may impose a small limit on the right to equality and non-discrimination (section 15), freedom of movement (section 19), and taking part in public life (section 23), but that such limits were justified by the need to ensure the readiness of the health system in responding to COVID-19. The internal review decision-maker outlined that human rights factors were considered in the creation of the policy, and that, while the decision has the potential to limit the appellant’s human rights, those limits on human rights are justified. The Commission did not consider human rights, which it said could be pursued through other avenues, and found that the decision was fair and reasonable.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RLJ. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s rights to a fair hearing (section 31) and not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34) as well as the right to protect families and children (section 26) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.

This matter was referred by the Childrens Court to QCAT to determine whether RNE had the capacity to understand ongoing child protection proceedings in the Children Court regarding his children, and whether a guardian should be appointed to make decisions for him in legal matters. Further tribunal-initiated applications were made relating to the protection of privacy for the children. These are the reasons for decisions made concerning the application for a confidentiality order and non-publication order.

This case concerned an application for review of a decision by the respondent to refuse payment of a HomeBuilder Grant to the applicants on the basis that the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal noted the applicants’ rights to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), but found that, in the circumstances, any limitation of such was compatible with human rights because the Tribunal lacked discretion to make a different decision.