Human Rights Case Law Project

Published cases referring to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

The UQ/Caxton Human Rights Case Law Project is an initiative of the UQ School of Law and Caxton Legal Centre Inc. The aim of this project is to ensure that practitioners, researchers, students and members of the public have easy access to all published cases that refer to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Case notes for all published decisions that mention the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) will be added to this page. Please be patient with us – we are a small team so the case notes might not appear immediately, but we will do our best to complete them as quickly as possible.

This project is run by Professor Tamara Walsh (UQ Pro Bono Centre) and Bridget Burton (Caxton Legal Centre).

Current team members are: Laura Rowswell (Student Leader), Liisa Kuru (Assistant Leader), Rory Brown, Ben Cornwell, Carolyn Farago, Laura Hall, Anouk Hendriks, Thorida Kim, Sophie Little, Kano Nawagawa, Max Punin, Hannah Retief, Genevieve Rule, Imogen Ryan-Kerr, and Georgia Williams.

Many thanks to our founding members: Elizabeth Aisi, Linden Peacock and Tulli Seton.

Case notes are available by keyword below and in alphabetical order.

Case notes by keyword

Children and Families
Civil Procedure
Commercial
Criminal Law and Corrective Services
Cultural rights
Discrimination
Domestic Violence
Education, Training and Employment
Health, Mental Health and Guardianship
Planning and Environment
Political Freedoms
Privacy and Confidentiality
Public Law Considerations
Tenancy and Social Housing

TD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 138

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.
TSG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 98

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of theft, drug-related and traffic offences. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the Act’s commencement. If the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, the Tribunal would have considered the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27) and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), right to a fair hearing (section 31); right to not be tried more than once (section 34), and right to education (section 36); as well as the competing right of every child to protection (section 26(2)).
TWE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 121

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, TWE. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and found that the ‘paramount consideration’ of the best interests of children justified any limitations imposed on TWE’s human rights.
VDG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 506

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of filming a person’s private parts without consent. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
VSS v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 96

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent that the applicant’s case was an exceptional case and that, therefore, the applicant’s positive notice should be cancelled. The applicant was studying to be nurse and had recent drug charges.
WDE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 301

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).
WW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 7

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, WW. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair trial (section 31), the applicant’s right to not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the rights of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
YM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 224

This application relates to a review of a decision from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to cancel the applicant’s positive notice and blue card and issue a negative notice. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) is discussed in relation to the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation against the competing right to protection of families and children, and the reasonable limitation of the applicant’s rights under section 13.

Pages

Steinhardt v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 111

The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].
Storch v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 152

The self-represented applicant argued that the respondent’s decision to issue him with a negative blue card notice, despite him being acquitted at trial of a charge of indecent treatment of a child, was a breach of several rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119

The appellant, a Registered Nurse, appealed against Queensland Health’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a vaccination directive, which he requested on the basis of his religious beliefs: at [7], [8], [13], [31]. As an aspect of the appeal, the appellant alleged that his human rights were breached through religious discrimination: at [36].
Taniela v Australian Christian College Moreton Ltd [2020] QCAT 249

This case concerned a complaint made on behalf of five-year-old Cyrus Taniela that his school’s decision to discontinue his enrolment for the second semester of 2020, unless he cut his hair to satisfy the school’s uniform policy, amounted to discrimination on the basis of race and sex. The applicant also argued that several human rights provided for in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to the discrimination experienced by Cyrus: recognition and equality before the law (section 15); freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 20); the rights of children (section 26(2)); cultural rights (section 27); and the right to education (section 36).
Thomson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 402

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.
TSG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 98

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of theft, drug-related and traffic offences. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the Act’s commencement. If the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, the Tribunal would have considered the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27) and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), right to a fair hearing (section 31); right to not be tried more than once (section 34), and right to education (section 36); as well as the competing right of every child to protection (section 26(2)).
Vale v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 438
VDG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 506

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of filming a person’s private parts without consent. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
WDE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 301

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).
William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 130

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.

Pages

Stys v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 265

This matter concerned an appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119

The appellant, a Registered Nurse, appealed against Queensland Health’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a vaccination directive, which he requested on the basis of his religious beliefs: at [7], [8], [13], [31]. As an aspect of the appeal, the appellant alleged that his human rights were breached through religious discrimination: at [36].
Tadeo v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 177

The appellant was a technical officer at Redlynch State College whose employment was suspended without pay due to her failure to provide evidence of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in accordance with the Department of Education Employment Direction 1/21.
Tamarin Pty Ltd & Otmoor Pty Ltd as Trustee v Wicks [2021] QCATA 146

This matter concerned a minor civil dispute claim by a commercial lessor against the directors of the lessee company for various costs including rental arrears. The relevant issue on appeal was whether a decision by an adjudicator not to call for submissions regarding the issue of jurisdiction was a breach of natural justice.
The Australian Institute for Progress Ltd v The Electoral Commission of Queensland & Ors [2020] QSC 54

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 State of Queensland through the Department of Housing and Public Works v Tenant [2020] QCAT 144

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.
Thorley v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 133

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).
TRE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 306

This case concerned a self-represented applicant seeking review of the respondent’s decision to issue her with a negative blue card notice.
Vale v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 438
Volkers v The Queen [2020] QDC 25

An application for a permanent stay of an indictment was brought by a former swimming coach on the basis of lack of fairness and oppression amounting to an abuse of process due to significant delay in proceedings. Reid DCJ found that the delay in prosecution of the accused since 2002 did amount to a breach of his right to a trial without unreasonable delay under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Annual report

2020/21 Annual Report for the Human Rights Case Law Project (PDF, 123.7 KB)

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.

Connect with our researchers

Collaborate with us to solve today's pressing challenges. Find out how we can work together.

Find a researcher by name
Find researchers by research area
Research themes & challenges
Potential HDR projects
Summer/Winter research scholarships
What's on

Follow UQ Law research on X

Subscribe for updates

Online resources

UQ Law Journal
ANZ Maritime Law Journal
Submissions and reports
Deaths in Custody Project
Domestic & Family Violence Bench Book
Domestic Violence Case Studies
Australian Feminist Judgements Project
Human Rights Case Law Project

All publications and resources

Funded projects

Research groups

Australian Centre for Private Law
Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law
Food Security and Intellectual Property
Indigenous People and the Law
Law and the Future of War
Law and Religion in the Asia-Pacific
Law, Science and Technology
Marine and Shipping Law Unit
UQ Solomon Islands Partnership