Alphabetical listing of cases

The case concerned an appeal of a decision which included an application for notices to produce documents where they may be relevant to capacity, subsequent to the making of an enduring power of attorney appointing the respondent as attorney for the application.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice on the basis that the applicant was an ‘exceptional case’. In deciding that the applicant was not an exceptional case, the Tribunal briefly considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) and considered that, to the extent that there were any limitations on those rights, those limitations were reasonable and justifiable.

The case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to allow Terrace-Haven to operate a retirement village with an age restriction. The Tribunal considered that the limitation on the right to equality, which would only be impacted in a small way, could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom by facilitating the freedom of residents to live as they choose, with similarly-aged and similarly-minded people, and enhancing dignity by allowing people to live as they choose, and that there was no less restrictive and reasonably available way to achieve the purpose.

In these proceedings, the Australian Institute for Progress sought an order that the Electoral Commission of Queensland pay their costs despite the Institute being unsuccessful in their application for declaratory relief. The Institute argued that this case warranted departure from the general rule that costs follow the event because the proceedings were of public interest and provided useful commentary on the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld). Applegarth J held that there was no sufficient reason to depart from the general costs rule and the Institute was ordered to pay the Commission’s costs.

A political think tank argued that provisions of the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) limited the freedom of expression and the right to take part in public life contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Applegarth J held that the limitations were proportionate and reasonable.

The Department of Housing and Public Works sought to terminate the self-represented respondent’s State Tenancy Agreement on the basis of the ‘objectionable behaviour’ of the Respondent.

This matter concerned the appeal of the respondent’s decision to continue the appellant’s suspension without remuneration for a further six months. The Commissioner considered the statutory requirements binding the respondent and found that respondent did not comply with all requirements.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed against the Department of Education’s decision to suspend her without pay due to her failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination direction. The appellant argued that the decision made ‘an unjustifiable incursion’ on her human rights, and that the decision maker had no authority to ‘overrule’ section 4 of the Covid-19 Emergency Response Act (2020) (Qld) which states that it does not override the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The respondent sought an order dismissing the claim filed by the applicant on the basis that, inter alia, the claim was made out of time, while the applicant sought an order that time be extended to the date of the filing of the claim. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the Commission’s consideration of the application to extend time on the basis that it was not acting in an administrative capacity. The application was dismissed.

This matter concerned an application for an interim order for a guardian and administrator for TPO, brought by his daughter DTA, on the basis of alleged misconduct by WFA, TPO’s de facto partner and power of attorney.