Alphabetical listing of cases

This matter concerned the appeal of the respondent’s decision to continue the appellant’s suspension without remuneration for a further six months. The Commissioner considered the statutory requirements binding the respondent and found that respondent did not comply with all requirements.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed against the Department of Education’s decision to suspend her without pay due to her failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination direction. The appellant argued that the decision made ‘an unjustifiable incursion’ on her human rights, and that the decision maker had no authority to ‘overrule’ section 4 of the Covid-19 Emergency Response Act (2020) (Qld) which states that it does not override the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The respondent sought an order dismissing the claim filed by the applicant on the basis that, inter alia, the claim was made out of time, while the applicant sought an order that time be extended to the date of the filing of the claim. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the Commission’s consideration of the application to extend time on the basis that it was not acting in an administrative capacity. The application was dismissed.

This matter concerned an application for an interim order for a guardian and administrator for TPO, brought by his daughter DTA, on the basis of alleged misconduct by WFA, TPO’s de facto partner and power of attorney.

This case concerned a self-represented applicant seeking review of the respondent’s decision to issue her with a negative blue card notice.

This case concerned a review of decisions of the District Court to refuse the Applicants (who were each defendants facing charges in that Court) access to counselling communications under section 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The Court considered that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply and, even if it did, the judge would not have been required to adopt a different interpretation than what they had.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, TWE. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and found that the ‘paramount consideration’ of the best interests of children justified any limitations imposed on TWE’s human rights.

An application for a permanent stay of an indictment was brought by a former swimming coach on the basis of lack of fairness and oppression amounting to an abuse of process due to significant delay in proceedings. Reid DCJ found that the delay in prosecution of the accused since 2002 did amount to a breach of his right to a trial without unreasonable delay under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an appeal by VSI, the son of VR, of various decisions of the tribunal by different members on different dates: as at [2]. These decisions were made under relevant provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) and the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld).