• Donnelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 149

    This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the respondent to refuse an exemption from COVID-19 Vaccination requirements requested by the applicant.
  • Dowling v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 340

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Satisfied that its decision was compatible with these rights, the Tribunal ordered the respondent’s decision to be set aside and replaced.
  • DP [2021] QCAT 271

    The case concerned an application for an interim order for the appointment of the applicant as guardian and administrator for her mother, DP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and thus its obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.
  • Drage v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 173

    This case concerned an application by the respondent for orders that they be granted leave to be legally represented at the proceedings between the respondent and the applicant. The substantive proceedings concerned the applicant seeking reinstatement of his former position, where he had raised the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [22]. This was not considered by the Commission.
  • DTH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 107

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, DTH. As the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time proceedings began, it was not considered in any depth.
  • Du Preez v Chelden [2020] ICQ 008

    This case concerns conduct occurring prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). It was agreed by both parties that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the case pursuant to s 108, which confirms that the Act has no retrospective application, and so it was not considered in any depth.
  • Dunlop & Anor v Body Corporate For Port Douglas Queenslander CTS 886 & Ors [2021] QSC 85

    The case concerned a claim for losses alleged to flow from a body corporate’s termination of letting and caretaking agreements. The Court considered that the authorities relevant to the interpretation of section 229(2) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) did not raise an ‘alternate realistically arguable interpretation’ that ought to be favoured due to the subsequent requirement under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) that statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights.
  • Dupois v Queensland Police & Anor [2022] QSC 241

    The case concerned an application for a permanent stay of all the charges faced by the applicant in the Magistrates Court. The applicant broadly contended that he would never be in a position to obtain a fair and impartial hearing as the charges brought against him were fabricated ‘due to a sexual relationship between…[his] former de facto wife…and the arresting officer...’
  • EB [2021] QCAT 434

    This matter concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal recognised that the right to freedom of movement (section 19) and right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) may be affected by the appointment of a guardian for accommodation matters. The Tribunal noted that these rights, in addition to the right to a fair hearing (section 31) under the Human Rights Act 2019, would be limited in the short-term pending a hearing held at a later date.
  • ED v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 56

    This case concerned an application to review the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant, ED. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned only in reference to the Tribunal being a public entity and therefore obligated to make decisions compatible with human rights under section 58.

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.