Alphabetical listing of cases

The respondents presented objections to Waratah’s application for a mining lease and an environmental authority to build a coal mine in the Galilee Basin. They relied on sections of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their objections. These objections were referred to the Land Court.

This case concerned an application for administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of Schedule 2 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

Westpac Bank claimed $329,034.48 from the first defendant (Mr Heslop), who was the guarantor of a debt in this amount. Mr Heslop alleged that Westpac and the second plaintiff (the Receiver) ‘breached Article 12 of the Human Rights Act’.

The Tribunal discussed the right to fair hearing within the context of an application to amend a default decision to add another party.

This case concerned an application for judicial review of a decision of the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy to cancel the applicant’s certificate of competency. The application was dismissed and the Court found that section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was not engaged when interpreting sections 12, 14 or 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

The case concerned a finding by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that the applicant had engaged in misconduct. The Tribunal determined that the limitations on the applicant’s human rights were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision directing the applicant, Ms Wilson, to attend an independent medical examination. The tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.

This was a costs decision. The applicants challenged the directives of the Chief Executive of Queensland Health to make COVID-19 vaccination compulsory for ambulance officers and nurses in public hospitals and sought relief and remedies under ss 59(2) and 58 of the Human Rights Act 2009 (Qld).

This case concerned a review of the guardianship and administration appointments for WMJ. The Tribunal applied the General Principles in section 11B(3) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), including, in particular, the principle that the adult is entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms that apply to those with capacity.

The applicant sought a declaration from the District Court, under section 29(7) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that his detention for offences for which he failed to appear was unlawful. Upon referral to the Supreme Court, it was held that section 29(7) recognises a human right to apply for a declaration as to the lawfulness of detention, but does not vest jurisdiction for declaratory relief in lower courts. The human right contained in section 29(7) would be accommodated in this, and other cases, by applying for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court.