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 (Student Leader), Laura Hall, Kano Nawagawa, Imogen Ryan-Kerr, Emily Gracias, Sarah Millar, Ella North, Elize Atme, Diksha Arora, Ocean Desta-Gebru and Bethany Jones.

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

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.
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.
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.
FGH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 401

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, FGH.
FJM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 36

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant.
FQA and MKD v Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs [2022] QCAT 126

The case concerned an application to review a contact decision. The Tribunal determined that MKD was not a parent or a member of the children’s family, so he had no standing to bring an application to review that decision and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the application.
GEE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 260

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, GEE. In weighing the risk and protective factors in consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s prior ten child concern reports for children in her care, her history of domestic violence (as both a protected and respondent person) and limited criminal history, the applicant’s ongoing interpersonal conflict with others and authorities, the circumstances in her home, the lack of independent social supports, and the perceived lack of insight and accountability the applicant had for her own actions related to harm suffered to a child in her care.
HAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 273

This case concerned an administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of four breaches of the Weapons Act 1900 (Qld).
HDK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 97

This matter concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card due to the applicant being charged with a stalking offence. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to this decision as the proceedings commenced before its commencement on 1 January 2020 (section 108). Regardless, the Tribunal acknowledged that it was a public body acting in an administrative capacity and that the decision would potentially impact the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27), cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), the right to education (section 36(2)), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). This was balanced against the right of every child to protection (section 26(2)). The Tribunal was satisfied that the decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card was compatible with human rights as the limits on the applicant’s rights were reasonable and justifiable (section 13).
HK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 130

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, HK. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal stated that it considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and held that any limitations on HK’s human rights were reasonable and justifiable pursuant to section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

Thornton v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 393

The respondent sought an order dismissing the claim filed by the applicant on the basis that, inter alia, the claim was made out of time, while the applicant sought an order that time be extended to the date of the filing of the claim. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the Commission’s consideration of the application to extend time on the basis that it was not acting in an administrative capacity. The application was dismissed.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 5) [2022] QLC 4

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd (Waratah) sought a mining lease and authorisation to mine thermal coal in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. This hearing concerned an application for an order to take evidence from First Nations witnesses on country. The Court balanced the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples under section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) against the public and private interests of minimising the inconvenience and cost of litigation. The Court held that refusing the application for on country evidence was not reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in the circumstances of the case.
White v Ideal Concreting and Landscapes ABN 75 165 352 250 [2022] QCAT 310

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

Pages

Palmer Leisure Coolum Pty Ltd v Magistrates Court of Queensland & Ors; Palmer v Magistrates Court of Queensland & Ors [2022] QSC 227

This case concerned an application for a stay of proceedings by the Commonwealth defendants regarding the proceedings brought by the plaintiff. By application, the plaintiffs, Palmer Leisure Coolum Pty Ltd and Clive Palmer, sought an order that would result in a summary judgment for criminal prosecutions involving a breach of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).
Queensland Police Service v Ahmed [2023] QMC 2

The Defendant was charged with contravening an order requiring access to information on a digital device without reasonable excuse. The Defendant submitted he had a reasonable excuse because compliance with the order would unreasonably limit his right to religious freedom on the basis that the device contained photographs of his wife without a hijab and personal communications between them.
R v CMA [2022] QDCPR 56

Following their indictment before the Court in respect of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care, this case concerned an application by the defendant for leave to subpoena ‘protected counselling communication’ records and information; and produce to the court, adduce evidence of or otherwise ‘use protected counselling communication’; and otherwise disclose, inspect or copy a ‘protected counselling communication’.
R v Finn [2023] QSC 10

This matter concerned the sentencing of the defendant, an Afghanistan war-veteran who developed PTSD and other mental health issues after serving three tours of duty. The Court was concerned, after reading a psychologist’s sentencing report, about the failure of Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) to facilitate the defendant’s treatment and rehabilitation and uphold the defendant’s rights to access medical treatment.
R v Hickey [2020] QCA 206

This case concerned an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against a sentence, in which the applicant relied on the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the argument faced ‘insurmountable hurdles’ and dismissed the application.
R v Lau [2022] QCA 37

This matter concerned an attempted appeal of a conviction on three counts of rape and one count of contravention of a domestic violence order on the grounds that the sentences are manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised in the appellant’s submissions in asserting breaches arising in the conduct of the trial.
R v Logan [2020] QDCPR 67

The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. In written submissions, Counsel for the applicant raised the applicant’s right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Horneman-Wren SC DCJ discussed the relevance of this right in the context of the application and ordered that the trial proceed on a judge alone basis.
R v Mitchell [2020] QDC 89

The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
R v Morrison [2020] QCA 187

The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by the District Court on the ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive.
R v NGK [2020] QDCPR 77

The respondent applied for a no jury trial in circumstances where measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic had prevented all new jury trials from proceeding. The respondent raised the right to be tried without unreasonable delay in section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The court found that the appropriate consideration was whether the making of a no jury order was ‘in the interests of justice.’

Pages

Re: Ipswich City Council [2020] QIRC 194

The case concerned an application seeking an exemption from the operation of s 14 and s 15 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of undertaking an affirmative action recruitment plan that targets only female waste truck drivers. The Commission was satisfied that the exemption was compatible with human rights and granted the exemption to the Ipswich City Council for a period of three years.
Re: Mackay Regional Council [2022] QIRC 064

This case concerned an application by the Mackay Regional Council to receive an exemption under s 113(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to recruit only people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander to apprentice/trainee positions.
Re: Protech Personnel Pty Ltd [2022] QIRC 029

This case concerned an application for the renewal of an exemption of specific provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The Tribunal granted an extension of the exemption for an additional three years and noted that the exemption was compatible with human rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Re: Rheinmetall Defence Australia Pty Ltd [2022] QIRC 440

This case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by a Queensland-based defence contractor, in order to ensure compliance with US laws prohibiting sharing technology and data with persons holding citizenship or permanent residency in a group of specified countries. The Commission considered that the exemption would impact on the entitlement to equal protection of the law without discrimination (section 15(3)), and right to equal and effective protection against discrimination (section 15(4)), but that the limitation was justified on the basis of contract compliance and national security. The exemption was ultimately granted.
River Glen Haven Over 50s Village [2021] QCAT 26

This case concerned age discrimination pertaining to an application for an exemption from section 127 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The company in question had in its trading name ‘over 50s village’ which was found to contravene this section. Given this finding, the Tribunal did not engage in an analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) despite submissions by the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Rowe & Anor v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 46

This case concerned an application for review of a decision by the respondent to refuse payment of a HomeBuilder Grant to the applicants on the basis that the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal noted the applicants’ rights to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), but found that, in the circumstances, any limitation of such was compatible with human rights because the Tribunal lacked discretion to make a different decision.
Ryle v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) & Pitt [2021] QIRC 307

The case concerned a complaint accepted by the now Queensland Human Rights Commission out of time and, inter alia, a secondary matter concerning a suppression of identity application made out of time.
Ryle v Venables & Ors [2021] QSC 60

The case concerned the rejection of a complaint of impairment discrimination contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by the first respondent acting as the delegate of the Human Rights Commissioner on the basis it was out of time. This application for judicial review was unsuccessful, as no ground for judicial review could be established. The Court briefly outlined the impacts of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on the framework established by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
Sandy v Queensland Human Rights Commissioner [2022] QSC 277

The applicant sought judicial review in relation to a decision by the Commissioner of the Queensland Human Rights Commission to reject a discrimination complaint, including on the ground that the decision was unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Court did not analyse this ground in depth as it did not apply to the decision of the Commissioner which was beyond power under section 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and therefore not within the scope of section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
SF v Department of Education [2021] QCAT 10

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).

Pages

Crookes v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 149

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment to permanent. There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.
Dale v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations) [2022] QIRC

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.
Davidson v Department of Seniors, Disability Services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships [2022] QCAT 367

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.
Davies v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 090

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.
Devon v Department of Seniors, Disability Services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships [2022] QCAT 386

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.
Dhanapathy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 356

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.
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.
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.
Edwards v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 091

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to refuse their COVID-19 vaccine exemption application form which cited genuinely held religious beliefs. The appellant submitted that the vaccination requirement was contrary to s 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) however the Commission found that the Health Employment Directive 12/21 could not be characterised as engaging this provision.
Elliott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 332

The case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision and a suspension without pay decision. The appellant contended that decisions following vaccine directions made under the Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 - Employee COVID-18 vaccination requirements had contravened the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which she subsequently sought to invoke.

Pages

GCS [2020] QCAT 206

The Tribunal considered whether there was a need to appoint a guardian and administrator for GCS, an 89 year-old woman with impaired capacity. The Tribunal had regard to the interpretation provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (s 48), GCS’s property rights (s 24), freedom of movement (s 19), and right to privacy (s 45) when making its decision to appoint the Public Guardian to manage GCS’s affairs.
GI [2023] QCAT 122

This matter concerned a woman with an intellectual disability on behalf of whom consent was sought for a hysterectomy to mitigate an increased risk of cancer. In having regard to her right to recognition before the law, freedom of movement and privacy, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, the Tribunal found that limits were reasonable and justified in consenting to the hysterectomy.
GNR [2022] QCAT 430

This case considered whether consent should be given for a 21 year old female with impaired capacity to undergo a sterilisation procedure. The Tribunal referred to the adult’s right to not be subjected to medical treatment without full, free and informed consent (section 17(c)) and their right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
HAC [2022] QCAT 104 - HAC [2022] QCAT 116

This case concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for HAC: at [1]. On the same day the application was made, an application was also made for an interim order seeking the appointment of an administrator and guardian for HAC on the basis of allegations of neglect of HAC’s care and exploitation of her property, though no evidence was tendered in support of these allegations: at [4]–[5].
In refusing to make the interim order, A/Senior Member Traves held that the appointment of a guardian and administrator on an interim basis was a serious incursion on HAC’s human rights, and that there were no reasonable grounds for making the order: at [14]–[15].
HAW [2021] QCAT 252

HAJ, the appointed attorney for HAW in relation to financial, personal and health matters, filed an application seeking authorisation of a conflict transaction. The Tribunal was satisfied that authorising these transactions was compatible with HAW’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), specifically HAW’s property rights.
HE [2022] QCAT 34

This matter concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian as guardian for HE. The Tribunal accepted that it was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and that appointing a guardian on an interim basis would interfere with a person’s human rights. In refusing the application, the Tribunal concluded that it was consistent with HE’s human rights to hold a hearing of the matter and provide HE the opportunity to be heard.
HFI [2020] QCAT 481

This case concerned an application for a confidentiality order, protecting personal information that the Tribunal held pertaining to HFI. In making this confidentiality order, Member Goodman recognised that any infringement of HFI’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were reasonably justified in order to prevent serious harm to HFI.
HH [2021] QCAT 103

This particular hearing concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland to manage HH’s personal and financial decisions, respectively. In its reasons, the Tribunal recognised that it was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal noted that such an appointment on an interim basis without a fair hearing is a serious incursion on a person’s human rights.
IHC [2021] QCAT 141

This case concerned several applications by IHC’s sons SHM and BHJ to be appointed as Guardian, Administrator and Enduring power of attorney. Member Casey ordered that the Public Guardian be appointed as guardian for IHC regarding accommodation and healthcare, and the Public Trustee appointed as administrator for all financial matters. In doing so, Member Casey held that this was a reasonable limitation on IHC’s human rights.
In an application about matters concerning LDR [2022] QCAT 274

This matter concerned an application filed by a hospital social worker for an interim appointment of a guardian and an administrator in respect of an elderly woman. The applicant did not refer to human rights.

Pages

NKG & JQ [2023] QCAT 190

This matter concerned an application by a journalist for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to seek orders authorising the publication of information about guardianship proceedings in a way that identified the person to whom the application and orders were about.
Parent v Matthew Flinders Anglican College and Stuart Meade [2023] QCAT 42

This case concerned an application for an interim order to prohibit the respondent from restricting the applicant’s communications with Matthew Flinders Anglican College or their staff, pending resolution of a discrimination complaint before the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 3) [2022] QIRC 112

McLennan IC considered whether the interference with the complainant's right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified in granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.
Peng v BAK10CUT PTY LTD & Anor (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 352

McLennan IC considered interference with the complainant's right to privacy and confidentiality under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified when granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.
Phillips v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2023] QIRC 019

This matter concerned the appeal of a decision made by the respondent to transfer the appellant to a new managerial position. The respondent claimed that the transfer was made due to ‘complex difficulties’ in the workplace, mental or physical illness or disability caused by work and an account from a medical practitioner that the appellant’s workplace issues were the source of their health issues.
PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188

A self-represented litigant sought judicial review after being issued a negative notice by Blue Card Services arguing that his case was ‘exceptional’. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal analysed limiting the applicant’s human rights and issued a non-publication order in light of the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)).
SF v Department of Education [2021] QCAT 10

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).
SQH v Scott [2022] QSC 16

This case concerned an appeal premised on the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt (section 32(2)(k)). After consideration of a number of provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Court ultimately found that the grounds of appeal could not be made out as the limitation imposed upon said rights was justified (section 13).
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.
Wagners Cement Pty Ltd & Anor v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QSC 124

The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)), was examined by the court. This arose because there was a possibility that confidential information would be inadvertently disclosed at the conclusion of the trial. The court found it unnecessary to examine this right in depth as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but held that there will be circumstances where justice cannot be served if everything must be done in public.

Pages

Davidson v Department of Seniors, Disability Services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships [2022] QCAT 367

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.
Devon v Department of Seniors, Disability Services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships [2022] QCAT 386

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.
Doedens v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 263

This matter concerned appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process associated therewith: at [13]. The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable: at [14].
Domrow v State of Queensland (Queensland Treasury) [2022] QIRC 331

This matter concerned an appeal, brought against a decision regarding the Queensland Treasury’s COVID-19 vaccination requirements for Treasury employees, under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD). The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision was fair and reasonable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Elliott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 332

The case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision and a suspension without pay decision. The appellant contended that decisions following vaccine directions made under the Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 - Employee COVID-18 vaccination requirements had contravened the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which she subsequently sought to invoke.

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