• MJP [2020] QCAT 253

    The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal reviewed guardianship appointments for MJP, a young man who is unable to communicate decisions about his life.
  • MK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 62

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MK. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant's right to take part in public life (section 23), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)), under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • ML v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 376

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ML. Member Ashman stated that ‘[t]he Tribunal must...consider the intent of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)’ but did not elaborate as to which specific considerations were relevant to this matter.
  • Mohr-Edgar v State of Queensland (Legal Aid Queensland) [2020] QIRC 136

    In her complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), the Applicant referred to employees of Legal Aid Queensland. Legal Aid Queensland made an application seeking suppression orders within these proceedings, citing the right to privacy and reputation contained in section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • MWCW and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 777

    The applicant sought a review of the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to mandatorily cancel his Visa as he did not pass the character test prescribed in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in a report by Queensland Corrective Services where they said they had considered the applicant’s human rights when determining that he required the level of structured supervision afforded to prisoners managed as high security.
  • NGV v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 319

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to vocational education (section 36), and cultural rights (section 27) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to proceedings.
  • NN and IN v Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women [2020] QCAT 146

    The right to protection of families and children (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 26) was argued by the applicants and analysed by the court in the context of a foster child and his foster family. The court held that the term “family” was to be given a broad interpretation and understood in the society of a particular country.
  • Optus Mobile Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Ors [2020] QPEC 15

    Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) raised by first co-respondent by election but not considered by the court.
  • Owen-D’Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273

    ​​​​​​​An action for judicial review was brought by a prisoner in relation to two decisions: the decision to impose a maximum security order (MSO) for a further six months (following seven years of being subject to such an order); and the decision to impose a no association order. The applicant claimed that the decision-maker breached the obligation to make decisions consistently with human rights, and to consider human rights in the making of decisions. The applicant failed to make out the claims with respect to the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the right to liberty and security of person, but was successful in making out the claim in relation to the right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty.  
  • Petrak v Griffith University & Ors [2020] QCAT 351

    This case considered whether Griffith University and two of its employees victimised or directly discriminated against the applicant on the basis of her impairment, family responsibilities and political beliefs. The Tribunal noted that proceeding to a final decision ‘on the papers’ appropriately balanced each party’s right to a fair hearing under section 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

Contact 

Please contact our group with any enquiries at humanrights@uq.edu.au.

Disclaimer

These case notes are intended to provide summarised general information only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such.  If the subject matter of any case note relates to a transaction or matter of particular concern, you should seek your own independent formal legal advice from an admitted legal practitioner.  Please note, UQ does not offer legal services to the public.