Alphabetical listing of cases

This matter concerned an application about a declaration of capacity seeking the removal the Public Trustee of Queensland as the administrator of SL, and the appointment of her sister DR as administrator. Submissions regarding the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD) were made from both parties.

This case concerned an appeal against a decision to not convert the appellant to a higher employment classification. The obligation imposed by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on public entities to consider human rights when making decisions was referenced within the relevant departmental directive, but there was no in-depth analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019.

A self-represented litigant applied to the Court of Disputed Returns for orders to quash the result of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council election and bring about a new election. The Court found that the applicant’s submissions alleged a breach of the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and the right to take part in public life (section 23). However, the Court held that any limitation on human rights was reasonable and justifiable pursuant to s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The case concerned a challenge to directions of the Chief Health Officer (CHO) under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which came about because the applicants' requested reasons for the making of the decisions to make the relevant directions. The CHO refused to give reasons on the basis that his decision to make the directions was of a legislative character, not an administrative character, and that therefore he was not obliged to give reasons. The Court agreed with the CHO. There was no discussion of human rights.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal claiming that the Queensland Police Service were directly discriminating against him by placing alerts, warnings and flags on his personal profile on their internal database. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was held not to apply as the events in question occurred prior to its commencement. The Tribunal noted that the evidence did not meet the standard required to make any findings of a contravention of human rights.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. In ordering that the Respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal considered the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2) and cultural rights (sections 27-28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This decision concerned an interlocutory application regarding matters of civil procedure arising from defamation proceedings that were yet to be determined. The applicant sought to have their name anonymised in the court’s published reasons.

The case concerned an appeal of finding and disciplinary decisions concerning five allegations associated with an alleged failure to comply with a workplace directive to wear a facemask.

This case concerned an application for an interim order that the Public Trustee be appointed for all financial matters for JF. 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 recognised the making of an interim order for guardianship was ‘a serious incursion on a person’s human rights’.

This case involved an application to progress a complaint that was originally made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, onto the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The complaint regarded an allegation of discrimination on the basis of race, from a job advertisement process conducted by the Queensland Art Gallery.