Alphabetical listing of cases

The applicant relied upon the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association contained within section 22 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in seeking declaratory relief against the respondents. There was, however, no in-depth analysis of this provision provided in the Commission’s decision.

The applicant sought declarations that the respondents had acted unlawfully under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by acting in a way that was incompatible with her right to freedom of expression (sections 21) and freedom of association (section 22(2)), and by failing to give proper consideration to her human rights. The Commission dismissed the application, on the basis that limitations were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

This case considered whether consent should be given for a 21 year old female with impaired capacity to undergo a sterilisation procedure. The Tribunal referred to the adult’s right to not be subjected to medical treatment without full, free and informed consent (section 17(c)) and their right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Whilst no particular breach of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was alleged, the Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under sections 4(f) and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and considered itself bound to consider the extent to which the applicant’s human rights were affected by this proceeding.

The case concerned an appeal against a decision to suspend the Appellant’s employment as a health service employee without remuneration due to her inability to comply with Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 which required her vaccination against COVID-19.

This matter concerned an application to stay the operation of the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ decision to immediately suspend the applicant’s driver authorisation number as a result of him being charged with domestic violence offences.

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s (Queensland Health’s) decision to refuse the applicant’s application for an exemption to COVID-19 vaccine requirements under a directive. The applicant submitted that his human rights had been limited by the directive: at [23]. The Commission noted that his submission failed to “address the legal reality” that human rights can be limited in appropriate circumstances under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that there could not be a “more important reason” than the protection of the applicant’s colleagues, patients and visitors against the possibility of contracting a potentially deadly virus from an unvaccinated employee: at [46].

This case concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for HAC: at [1]. On the same day the application was made, an application was also made for an interim order seeking the appointment of an administrator and guardian for HAC on the basis of allegations of neglect of HAC’s care and exploitation of her property, though no evidence was tendered in support of these allegations: at [4]–[5].
In refusing to make the interim order, A/Senior Member Traves held that the appointment of a guardian and administrator on an interim basis was a serious incursion on HAC’s human rights, and that there were no reasonable grounds for making the order: at [14]–[15].

The case concerned an application for a mining lease. The Court briefly discussed its obligation to properly consider human rights, although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had commenced after objections had been lodged. The Court then provided an outline of the submissions that the applicants had made on human rights, but did not make any further remarks. The objections were addressed so as not to preclude a grant of the mining lease, but a number of steps still preceded its possible grant.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert his employment to a higher classification level. The appellant submitted to the Commission that he should have been treated by the respondent in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.