Alphabetical listing of cases

The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it is in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 32(2)(c)) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.

The case concerned a complaint accepted by the now Queensland Human Rights Commission out of time and, inter alia, a secondary matter concerning a suppression of identity application made out of time.

The case concerned the rejection of a complaint of impairment discrimination contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by the first respondent acting as the delegate of the Human Rights Commissioner on the basis it was out of time. This application for judicial review was unsuccessful, as no ground for judicial review could be established. The Court briefly outlined the impacts of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on the framework established by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

The applicant sought judicial review in relation to a decision by the Commissioner of the Queensland Human Rights Commission to reject a discrimination complaint, including on the ground that the decision was unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Court did not analyse this ground in depth as it did not apply to the decision of the Commissioner which was beyond power under section 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and therefore not within the scope of section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The case concerned a claim for damages of a breach of lease regarding a swimming pool. The plaintiff in his written submissions asserted that his right to fair hearing had been breached by the defendant’s solicitors through failing to facilitate the litigation proceeding expeditiously and at a minimum of expense. There was no direct engagement by the Court with human rights considerations.

This matter concerned an application filed by the respondent to dismiss the application made by the applicant (mother) to review a contact decision designed to facilitate contact between the applicant’s children. In the reasons for the decision, the Tribunal referred to the right to protection of families and children in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (sections 26(1) and (2)) to give context for the obligation to support the family and why the applicant was a person affected by the decision concerning contact with the child. The Tribunal did not engage in any substantive discussion of human rights. The respondent’s application to dismiss the applicant mother’s application was refused.

The appellant sought to challenge the outcome of a review of her employment status. Contained within the relevant policy directive was a provision acknowledging the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of the provision in the directive or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally. 

This case concerned a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to reject the applicant's renewal of her weapons licence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and their obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision to issue a negative notice for a Blue Card where the applicant had been convicted of breaching domestic violence orders, breaching a suspended sentence, breaching a probation order, failing to appear in accordance with undertaking, breaching bail conditions, possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence.