Alphabetical listing of cases

The appellant was a technical officer at Redlynch State College whose employment was suspended without pay due to her failure to provide evidence of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in accordance with the Department of Education Employment Direction 1/21.

A former prisoner applied for leave to appeal and appeal of a decision in which she experienced discrimination on the basis of her gender identity during her incarceration in a male prison. Pursuant to section 108, the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was found to not apply because the Tribunal’s decision was made prior to the commencement of the Act.

This matter concerned a minor civil dispute claim by a commercial lessor against the directors of the lessee company for various costs including rental arrears. The relevant issue on appeal was whether a decision by an adjudicator not to call for submissions regarding the issue of jurisdiction was a breach of natural justice.

This case concerned a complaint made on behalf of five-year-old Cyrus Taniela that his school’s decision to discontinue his enrolment for the second semester of 2020, unless he cut his hair to satisfy the school’s uniform policy, amounted to discrimination on the basis of race and sex. The applicant also argued that several human rights provided for in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to the discrimination experienced by Cyrus: recognition and equality before the law (section 15); freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 20); the rights of children (section 26(2)); cultural rights (section 27); and the right to education (section 36). 

The case concerned an appeal of a decision which included an application for notices to produce documents where they may be relevant to capacity, subsequent to the making of an enduring power of attorney appointing the respondent as attorney for the application.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice on the basis that the applicant was an ‘exceptional case’. In deciding that the applicant was not an exceptional case, the Tribunal briefly considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) and considered that, to the extent that there were any limitations on those rights, those limitations were reasonable and justifiable.

The case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to allow Terrace-Haven to operate a retirement village with an age restriction. The Tribunal considered that the limitation on the right to equality, which would only be impacted in a small way, could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom by facilitating the freedom of residents to live as they choose, with similarly-aged and similarly-minded people, and enhancing dignity by allowing people to live as they choose, and that there was no less restrictive and reasonably available way to achieve the purpose.

In these proceedings, the Australian Institute for Progress sought an order that the Electoral Commission of Queensland pay their costs despite the Institute being unsuccessful in their application for declaratory relief. The Institute argued that this case warranted departure from the general rule that costs follow the event because the proceedings were of public interest and provided useful commentary on the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld). Applegarth J held that there was no sufficient reason to depart from the general costs rule and the Institute was ordered to pay the Commission’s costs.

A political think tank argued that provisions of the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) limited the freedom of expression and the right to take part in public life contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Applegarth J held that the limitations were proportionate and reasonable.

The Department of Housing and Public Works sought to terminate the self-represented respondent’s State Tenancy Agreement on the basis of the ‘objectionable behaviour’ of the Respondent.