Alphabetical listing of cases

In deciding an appeal against a decision to transfer a public service officer made pursuant to s194(1)(d) of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), the Commissioner addressed a contention that the decision-maker failed to give proper consideration to a number of human rights, as evidenced by a lack of any express reference to human rights in the transfer decision. Citing Hutchison v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 317, the Commissioner expressed a view that it was not always necessary for a decision-maker to write in great detail about the consideration of human rights particularly if the decision-maker has come to the conclusion that human rights are not interfered with: at [65]. The Commissioner rejected the lack of express reference to human rights as grounds rendering a decision unreasonable and, following that line of reasoning, determined there was no utility in returning the transfer decision to the decision-maker to reissue the transfer decision with an expanded explanation regarding the consideration of human rights: at [66]. The Commissioner did find the transfer decision was not reasonably open to the decision-maker, but for other reasons.

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.

The case concerned an application for the renewal of an exemption from the operation of specified provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to operate a manufactured home park reserved for people over 50. In making its determination to not grant the renewal, the Tribunal acknowledged that the application affected the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and property rights (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

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 case related to a decision about costs in a remitted hearing. In considering whether the Tribunal was bound to follow the doctrine of precedent, Member Gordon was prompted to consider whether the Tribunal was exercising judicial functions or administrative functions. The Tribunal considered that where a tribunal acts in an administrative capacity, it is less likely that the doctrine of precedent would apply. Member Gordon noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had prompted the Tribunal to consider when it is acting in an administrative capacity rather than judicial capacity but made no further reference to the legislation.