Alphabetical listing of cases

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.

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.

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).

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.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the COVID-19 Vaccination. The Commissioner did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights.

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal and an application to stay a decision made by the Tribunal regarding EMC’s removal as an Enduring Power of Attorney for ECJ.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of offences in relation to the possession of cannabis.

This case concerns an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made with respect to the appellant’s fixed term temporary employment status and consideration of conversion to permanent employment. In order to consider the appeal, it was necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act 2008 and Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment, the latter of which included a reference to the requirement imposed by section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 which requires decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights. However, there was no consideration of human rights made by the Commission.

The applicant sought an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to operate their fitness clubs exclusively for female members, and to be run exclusively by female staff. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in reference to whether granting this exemption placed a reasonable and demonstrably justifiable limit on the right to recognition and equality before the law.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, FGH.