Alphabetical listing of cases

This matter concerned a review of the refusal of an application for a Blue Card by BJM, an individual who had been charged (but not convicted) with sexual assault of a child and investigated for possession of child exploitation material. The Tribunal confirmed human rights may only be limited so far as is reasonable and justifiable (s 13) and outlined that all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights (s 48).

This matter concerned an interim order application for the appointment of a guardian. The Tribunal noted that a successful interim application would frequently affect the adult’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), such as their right to freedom of movement (section 19).

This application concerned an appeal of a decision to not approve the applicant’s request for an exemption from the requirement to receive the necessary doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.

The case concerned an application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and requirements for police officers in circumstances where the Appellant was suspended without remuneration when her exemption was denied.

The applicant was the principal body corporate for a layered community title scheme comprised of 18 subsidiary body corporates. The respondent was a service contractor under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1999 (Qld).

The applicant was the principal body corporate for a layered community title scheme comprised of 18 subsidiary body corporates. The respondent was a service contractor under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1999 (Qld).

The appellant sought a stay of the Tribunal’s decision to terminate the residential tenancy agreement between the appellant and respondent. The appellant also filed an application for leave to appeal the decision which included a generalised complaint that his rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were infringed by the termination because of a shortage of housing on Badu Island. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant would be disadvantaged due to the shortage of housing, but also noted the respondent would be equally disadvantaged by not having access to her own property: at [11]. The Tribunal refused the application for a stay but did not otherwise make any substantive comments or findings in relation to the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The Court dismissed an application for a number of orders under the Land Court Act 2000 (Qld). In doing so, the Court found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had no bearing on the Queensland Police Service’s execution of a lawfully granted warrant of possession.

The right not to be tried or punished more than once (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 34) was argued by the applicant, but not considered by the court.

This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as it was mentioned in submissions, however, did not substantively discuss these rights.