Alphabetical listing of cases

The applicant alleged discrimination, inter alia, on the basis of an unreasonable limitation of the right to recognition and equality before the law pursuant to section 15 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The commission never addresses this contention further.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MAP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to the duties it imposed upon the Tribunal, and the relevance of the right not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) to the operation of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for reopening a previous Tribunal matter in circumstances where the Applicant did not attend the hearing in question. The Tribunal referred to s 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) where it was considered that it is the human right of an individual to have a civil proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or Tribunal after a fair hearing.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MB. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal considered property rights, the right to privacy and reputation, the right to protection of families and children, the right to a fair hearing, the right not to be tried or punished more than once and the right to education.

This case concerned an appeal of a Tribunal decision that found a signatory personally liable for fees under a client agreement. The applicant complained that there was a breach of natural justice in the making of the initial decision.

Mr Adrian McIver (the appellant), an Information Technology Officer, appealed against the respondent’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a COVID-19 vaccination directive.

This case concerned an appeal against a decision by the Department of Housing and Public Works not to convert the appellant’s employment to a higher classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in a directive that imposed an obligation on decision makers to act in a way that was compatible with human rights, but there was no further discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

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.

This matter concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as Guardian and Administrator respectively for MGT, in circumstances where the Public Guardian had made the accommodation decision to remove MGT from his mother’s (BC) place of residence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in acknowledging that certain fundamental human rights exist, irrespective of capacity.

This case relates to application for an exemption from the operation of sections of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in order to maintain a residency requirement of being over the age of 50. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) is discussed in relation to the right of recognition and equality before the law, and how it’s definition of ‘discrimination’ differs from that provided by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).