Alphabetical listing of cases

This matter concerned three applications brought by a hospital social worker regarding LDR for the appointment of a guardian; for the appointment of an administrator; for an interim order for appointment of a guardian and an administrator until the substantive applications have been decided.

This case concerns an appeal against a decision to refuse the appellants transfer request to a higher employment classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in regard to the obligation of the Department's decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

This appeal case concerned an applicant who had disconnected during a telephone hearing and did not have the opportunity to cross examine or make final submissions. The Tribunal found that the applicant was denied procedural fairness. The Tribunal considered that the right to fair hearing is recognised in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s decision to not convert the appellant’s employment status to a higher classification. Contained within a relevant policy directive was an acknowledgement of the requirement of public entities to make decisions compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of this provision or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally. 

The plaintiff sought various forms of substantive relief on the basis of human rights, however the Court considered that this was based on a “fundamental misconstruction” of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and did not consider it necessary to deal with such submissions. As such, there was no substantive consideration of human rights by the Court.

This case arose under an application for the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland to be appointed as Guardian and Administrator respectively for the adult. The Tribunal noted in its reasoning that the case was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that appointment of guardians and administrators impose limitations on human rights.

This case concerned an application for leave to appeal a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision to change the terms of appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian for adult, LER. The Tribunal briefly mentioned the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in making a non-publication order and granting an extension of time for leave to appeal.

The case concerned a review of a negative Blue Card notice. The Tribunal determined that they were required to comply with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provision directed at public entities and that the limitations to human rights from refusing to issue the blue card, excluding the media and public, and issuing the non-publication order were reasonable and justifiable. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that it was not satisfied the applicant’s case was an exceptional case and therefore it would be in the interests of children for her to be issued with a ‘working with children clearance.’

This Matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse remuneration to the applicant for suspended employment due to non-compliance with COVID-19 directions. The applicant did not refer to any specific human right under the Act, however the respondent referred to section 13 of the Human Rights Act that affords for the restriction of the prescribed human rights. The Commission did not engage in any further substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights. The initial decision was affirmed.

This matter 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 noted that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) the right not to be punished more than once for an offence (section 34), as well as the rights of every child to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child (section 26) were relevant, but found that this decision does not limit the applicant’s rights or the rights of children to protection and is therefore compatible with human rights.