• FH [2020] QCAT 482

    This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian to make decisions regarding legal matters for FH. Member Traves recognised that the Tribunal was a public entity acting in an administrative capacity within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and was required to consider the Act when making such an order.
  • FHV [2022] QCAT 312

    This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Trustee of Queensland pursuant to s 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld).
  • Figueiredo v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 052

    The matter concerned the appeal of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the appellant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination. The appellant submitted he was exempt from the obligation based on a genuinely held religious belief however did not expressly refer to his rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • Fitzgerald v Venables & Anor [2022] QSC 78

    This case concerned proceedings relating to a challenge of a decision made by the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner to not accept a complaint made by the applicant. Martin SJA ordered the application to be adjourned to a date to be fixed and a contradictor to be appointed to assist the Court in dealing with the matter.
  • FJM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 36

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant.
  • Fletcher v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 045

    The appellant in this case had sought an exemption to mandatory vaccination requirements on the basis of exceptional circumstances. These circumstances included concerns regarding a lack of consultation, safety, and efficacy of the vaccine, and the incursion upon the appellant’s human rights. The appellant asserted that mandatory vaccinations were a breach of section 17 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which provided the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
  • Flowers v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1467

    Human rights breaches by the NSW Police were argued by the plaintiff, but the court considered the argument to be irrelevant to the case.
  • FQA and MKD v Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs [2022] QCAT 126

    The case concerned an application to review a contact decision. The Tribunal determined that MKD was not a parent or a member of the children’s family, so he had no standing to bring an application to review that decision and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the application.
  • GCS [2020] QCAT 206

    The Tribunal considered whether there was a need to appoint a guardian and administrator for GCS, an 89 year-old woman with impaired capacity. The Tribunal had regard to the interpretation provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (s 48), GCS’s property rights (s 24), freedom of movement (s 19), and right to privacy (s 45) when making its decision to appoint the Public Guardian to manage GCS’s affairs.
  • GI [2023] QCAT 122

    This matter concerned a woman with an intellectual disability on behalf of whom consent was sought for a hysterectomy to mitigate an increased risk of cancer. In having regard to her right to recognition before the law, freedom of movement and privacy, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, the Tribunal found that limits were reasonable and justified in consenting to the hysterectomy.



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.