Alphabetical listing of cases

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s positive blue card and issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, CTC. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal found that the right to privacy and reputation (section 25), taking part in public life (section 23) and right to protection of families and children (section 26) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.

The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee as guardian and administrator respectively for CTR, in circumstances where it was accepted that the limits imposed by this order were reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on CTR’s right to privacy (section 25), freedom of movement (section 19) and property rights (section 24).

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to promote him. Both the appellant and respondent referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their submissions but the Act was not substantively discussed by the Commission.

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the applicant was an ‘exceptional case’ under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) and to revoke the applicant’s blue card. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was submitted by the applicant but was held as inapplicable, due its commencement coming after the beginning of the proceedings.

The case concerned an application for review of a yellow card negative notice. The Department identified that the rights to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 17) and freedom from work (section 18), so far as they related to vulnerable people, are already incorporated into the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld), and the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) supports but does not extend the paramount consideration.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert his employment to permanent. The respondent’s decision was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

This case concerned an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made under section 175 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) requiring the applicant to submit to a medical examination.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal confirmed the Respondent’s decision in finding that any limitation on the Applicant’s human rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified in that it had the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people.

The case concerned an application for a review of an exclusion from working in the disability sector. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant’s rights to fair hearing and not to be tried or punished more than once had not been limited, and that it could lawfully make a decision incompatible with the applicant’s right to reputation as the Disability Services Act 2000 (Qld) compels it to conduct a risk assessment, and to make the safety of persons with a disability the paramount consideration. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application.

The case concerned a disciplinary reprimand in relation to an allegation that the appellant illegally parked on the Princess Alexandra Hospital campus. The appellant made submissions that the respondent had ‘defied’ the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in causing the appellant’s ‘sheer mental agony and torture.’ The Commission disagreed and instead found that it was reasonable for the decision-maker to impose the disciplinary action.