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, 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.

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 Appellant was a Security Officer and Crowd Controller registered under the Security Provider Act 1993 (Qld). His licence was suspended for the duration of criminal proceedings where it was alleged that he had, during the course of performing security patrols, instructed an intoxicated woman to enter his car whereupon he sexually assaulted her. The Appellant filed an application to stay the criminal proceedings against him, including on grounds that the decision maker, in deciding to suspend his licence, failed to consider his human rights. He argued that the suspension itself was a breach of his human rights and the presumption of innocence: at [22]. The Tribunal considered a suspension was a justifiable limitation of an individual’s human rights when balanced against matters of public importance, including the protection of the public and the preservation of faith of the community that persons who hold a Security Officer/Crowd Controller licence are appropriate persons to hold such a licence: at [24] - [25]. The stay application was dismissed.

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.