• Du Preez v Chelden [2020] ICQ 008

    This case concerns conduct occurring prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). It was agreed by both parties that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the case pursuant to s 108, which confirms that the Act has no retrospective application, and so it was not considered in any depth.
  • Dunlop & Anor v Body Corporate For Port Douglas Queenslander CTS 886 & Ors [2021] QSC 85

    The case concerned a claim for losses alleged to flow from a body corporate’s termination of letting and caretaking agreements. The Court considered that the authorities relevant to the interpretation of section 229(2) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) did not raise an ‘alternate realistically arguable interpretation’ that ought to be favoured due to the subsequent requirement under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) that statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights.
  • Dupois v Queensland Police & Anor [2022] QSC 241

    The case concerned an application for a permanent stay of all the charges faced by the applicant in the Magistrates Court. The applicant broadly contended that he would never be in a position to obtain a fair and impartial hearing as the charges brought against him were fabricated ‘due to a sexual relationship between…[his] former de facto wife…and the arresting officer...’
  • EB [2021] QCAT 434

    This matter concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal recognised that the right to freedom of movement (section 19) and right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) may be affected by the appointment of a guardian for accommodation matters. The Tribunal noted that these rights, in addition to the right to a fair hearing (section 31) under the Human Rights Act 2019, would be limited in the short-term pending a hearing held at a later date.
  • ED v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 56

    This case concerned an application to review the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant, ED. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned only in reference to the Tribunal being a public entity and therefore obligated to make decisions compatible with human rights under section 58.
  • Edwards v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 091

    The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to refuse their COVID-19 vaccine exemption application form which cited genuinely held religious beliefs. The appellant submitted that the vaccination requirement was contrary to s 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) however the Commission found that the Health Employment Directive 12/21 could not be characterised as engaging this provision.
  • EH v Queensland Police Service; GS v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 205

    The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 22) in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was briefly mentioned by Fantin DCJ in Her Honour’s reasons for allowing an appeal and resentencing the two appellants in circumstances where the original sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
  • Elliott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 332

    The case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision and a suspension without pay decision. The appellant contended that decisions following vaccine directions made under the Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 - Employee COVID-18 vaccination requirements had contravened the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which she subsequently sought to invoke.
  • Ellison v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 174

    The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment from a Registered Nurse (NG5) to a Clinical Nurse (NG6).
  • ELS v QPS – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 118

    The appellant sought a preliminary decision about whether information filed by QPS was ‘criminal intelligence’ in proceedings involving a substantive review of three decisions relating to weapons licensing.



Please contact our group with any enquiries at humanrights@uq.edu.au.


These case notes are intended to provide summarised general information only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such.  If the subject matter of any case note relates to a transaction or matter of particular concern, you should seek your own independent formal legal advice from an admitted legal practitioner.  Please note, UQ does not offer legal services to the public.