Alphabetical listing of cases

The Tribunal considered the appointment of a suitable guardian and administrator for a woman experiencing impaired decision making as a result of  dementia.

This case related to a decision concerning applications for protection orders by ex-partners involving their child.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant after he failed to make submissions regarding his eligibility following concerns about his criminal record.

This matter concerned appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process associated therewith: at [13]. The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable: at [14].

This matter concerned an appeal, brought against a decision regarding the Queensland Treasury’s COVID-19 vaccination requirements for Treasury employees, under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD). The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision was fair and reasonable.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the respondent to refuse an exemption from COVID-19 Vaccination requirements requested by the applicant.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Satisfied that its decision was compatible with these rights, the Tribunal ordered the respondent’s decision to be set aside and replaced.

The case concerned an application for an interim order for the appointment of the applicant as guardian and administrator for her mother, DP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and thus its obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

This case concerned an application by the respondent for orders that they be granted leave to be legally represented at the proceedings between the respondent and the applicant. The substantive proceedings concerned the applicant seeking reinstatement of his former position, where he had raised the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [22]. This was not considered by the Commission.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, DTH. As the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time proceedings began, it was not considered in any depth.