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

HM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 13

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, HM. The Tribunal considered whether its decision was compatible with the applicant’s rights to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the rights of children to necessary protection that is in their best interests (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and concluded that its decision promotes and is compatible with human rights.
HMD v Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women [2020] QCAT 272

This case concerned an application by HMD for review of a decision made by a delegated decision maker of the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women. The Manager refused an application by HMD who sought to become a kinship carer for AR, HMD’s great granddaughter.
IAR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 14

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, IAR. As the appeal pre-dated the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal held that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply.
Ibarra v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 225

The case concerned a review of a decision to issue a negative notice pursuant to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), where the applicant’s case was found to be ‘exceptional.’
ISC v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 304

This case concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ISC. The respondent’s decision was made on the grounds that he was convicted in UK for the offence of negligent manslaughter and additionally on the grounds of alleged bullying whilst he was working as a sports coach.
JB v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 275

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JB. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision. Although the Tribunal noted the importance of considering the right to the protection of children, it was satisfied that any limitations on JB’s human rights were justified in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There was no substantive discussion of human rights.
JB v Director-General Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 433

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. In ordering that the Respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal considered the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2) and cultural rights (sections 27-28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
JDW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 100

The applicant was coaching children at a community-based sporting organisation when his blue card was cancelled based on new information affecting his criminal record. He had a criminal history relating to supply and possession of drugs. He sought a review of the negative notice.
JR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 332

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JR. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal noted section 13(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and held that any limitation on JR’s human rights were consistent with giving primary consideration to the interests of children.
JZ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 183

This case concerned an application to the Tribunal to review the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s positive notice and issue her with a negative notice, following a change to the applicant’s police information. In reviewing the decision, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), and cultural rights (sections 27 and 28) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal also had regard to the competing right of every child to ‘the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child’ as provided for in s 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

R v Wassmuth; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2022] QCA 113

The case concerned the operation of section 31 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). Bond JA considered the potential application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and opined that this case did not provide the occasion for a consideration of the factors listed in section 13(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in determining the question of the proper construction of the provision in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).
R v WTS [2022] QDCPR 57

This case concerned an application of the defendant to subpoena documents or records from an organisation that provided counselling services and support to a child complainant. Accordingly and on behalf of the defendant, an objection was raised as to the standing of the counselled child to be heard under criteria in s 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Long SC DCJ allowed the objection of the defendant to the counselled child being allowed leave to be heard, upon the broad basis on which the application had been sought. Sections 25 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were mentioned in the header, but there was no discussion of human rights.
Radic v State of Queensland & Ors [2022] QSC 134

This matter concerned an application for a declaration that the applicant had been unlawfully imprisoned after being failed to be released from custody after a Magistrate had ordered the applicant be admitted to conditional bail on 30 March 2022.
Re Dunshea [2021] QSC 163

This case concerned an application for bail, in which the applicant relied upon the right to liberty and security of person (section 29 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). Specifically, the applicant’s argument rested on unreasonable delay in the circumstances of his case. The Queensland Court of Appeal accepted that, weighing the factors at play, the applicant’s risk of reoffending was ameliorated to an acceptable level and that his continued detention in custody was unjustified.
Re JMT [2020] QSC 72

This case concerned an application for bail for charges of murder and grievous bodily harm. The court briefly mentioned the rights of detained persons and the obligations the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) casts on the three branches of government, but there was no in-depth discussion as a human rights argument was not made by the applicant.
RTM v The Queen [2020] QDC 93

The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it is in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 32(2)(c)) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
Scott v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330

This case concerned a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to reject the applicant's renewal of her weapons licence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and their obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.
TCD v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 277

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice (that is, deny the applicant a Blue Card) under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (WWC Act). Member Davies noted a number of competing rights protected by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) including the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to take part in public life (section 23), as well as right of every child to the protection that is needed by the child (section 26). Member Davis ‘narrowly’ came to the view that the applicant should be issued a Blue Card, but did not otherwise explain what consideration or weight was given to each of those competing rights in reaching that view.
TRKJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) & Ors; KAY v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) & Ors [2021] QSC 297

This case concerned a review of decisions of the District Court to refuse the Applicants (who were each defendants facing charges in that Court) access to counselling communications under section 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The Court considered that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply and, even if it did, the judge would not have been required to adopt a different interpretation than what they had.
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).

Pages

Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 190

This case concerned an application for an order protecting the complainant’s interests. The applicant had lodged a discrimination complaint in relation to his employer, Queensland Health’s, decision not to employ him, which the applicant alleged was on the basis of his relationship with another doctor at that hospital.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council [No 2] [2021] QCAT 439

This matter concerned an application for exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) concerning a proposed policy with the effect of allowing the applicant to grant permits to conduct certain tourism businesses on Council land solely to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Surtie Enterprises Pty Ltd T/A Greenbank Gardens Manufactured Home Park [2023] QCAT 228

The case concerned an application for the renewal of an exemption from the operation of specified provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to operate a manufactured home park reserved for people over 50. In making its determination to not grant the renewal, the Tribunal acknowledged that the application affected the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and property rights (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Tafao v State of Queensland [2020] QCATA 76

A former prisoner applied for leave to appeal and appeal of a decision in which she experienced discrimination on the basis of her gender identity during her incarceration in a male prison. Pursuant to section 108, the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was found to not apply because the Tribunal’s decision was made prior to the commencement of the Act.
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).
Terrace-Haven Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 23

The case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to allow Terrace-Haven to operate a retirement village with an age restriction. The Tribunal considered that the limitation on the right to equality, which would only be impacted in a small way, could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom by facilitating the freedom of residents to live as they choose, with similarly-aged and similarly-minded people, and enhancing dignity by allowing people to live as they choose, and that there was no less restrictive and reasonably available way to achieve the purpose.
Wildin v State of Queensland [2020] QCAT 514

A self-represented applicant claimed that the State, vicariously through a Queensland state school, indirectly discriminated against and victimised her. As the events pre-dated the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal stated that the Act did not apply. Regardless, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and freedom of movement (section 19) were not contravened.

Pages

Ellison v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 174

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment from a Registered Nurse (NG5) to a Clinical Nurse (NG6).
Elsworthy v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 412

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the COVID-19 Vaccination. The Commissioner did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights.
FBN v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 260

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 offences in relation to the possession of cannabis.
Fennell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 092

This case concerns an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made with respect to the appellant’s fixed term temporary employment status and consideration of conversion to permanent employment. In order to consider the appeal, it was necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act 2008 and Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment, the latter of which included a reference to the requirement imposed by section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 which requires decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights. However, there was no consideration of human rights made by the Commission.
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.
Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service & Ors [2020] QIRC 084

The applicant relied upon the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association contained within section 22 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in seeking declaratory relief against the respondents. There was, however, no in-depth analysis of this provision provided in the Commission’s decision.
Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service & Ors [2021] QIRC 255

The applicant sought declarations that the respondents had acted unlawfully under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by acting in a way that was incompatible with her right to freedom of expression (sections 21) and freedom of association (section 22(2)), and by failing to give proper consideration to her human rights. The Commission dismissed the application, on the basis that limitations were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.
GT v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 187

This matter concerned an application to stay the operation of the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ decision to immediately suspend the applicant’s driver authorisation number as a result of him being charged with domestic violence offences.
Hansen v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2021] QIRC 162

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert his employment to a higher classification level. The appellant submitted to the Commission that he should have been treated by the respondent in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.
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).

Pages

JF [2020] QCAT 419

This case concerned an application for an interim order that the Public Trustee be appointed for all financial matters for JF. Member Traves recognised that the Tribunal was a public entity acting in an administrative capacity within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and recognised the making of an interim order for guardianship was ‘a serious incursion on a person’s human rights’.
JL [2022] QCAT 408

This matter concerns an application by JL’s daughter, CL, to be appointed JL’s sole guardian and administrator. JL had previously appointed her son, AL, under Victorian legislation, and then subsequently appointed CL under Queensland legislation to act as her guardian “severally”. The Tribunal found that CL had been validly appointed to be JL’s sole guardian.
JSC [2022] QCAT 358

This case concerned the decision of the appointment for the position of public guardian and administrator of JSC where there were separate applications by both the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as well as the Mother and Grandmother of JSC. In making an order that the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee be appointed these roles pending a review in three years, the Tribunal considered JSC’s right to privacy (section 25), freedom of movement (section 19), property rights (section 24) and protection from being subjected to medical treatment without her full, free and informed consent.
KAN [2022] QCAT 168

This matter concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for KAN. KAN had acquired significant disabilities at birth due to hospital negligence and a $5,000,000 compromise settlement of his medical negligence claim had been held and managed by a court-appointed trustee while he was a minor.
KR [2023] QCAT 212

This matter concerned an application for the appointment of the applicant's son as her administrator as her appointed attorneys sought leave to resign. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s capacity to revoke the appointment and her capacity for financial decisions.
LDR [2022] QCAT 274

This matter concerned three applications brought by a hospital social worker regarding LDR for the appointment of a guardian; for the appointment of an administrator; for an interim order for appointment of a guardian and an administrator until the substantive applications have been decided.
LHM [2022] QCAT 90

This case arose under an application for the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland to be appointed as Guardian and Administrator respectively for the adult. The Tribunal noted in its reasoning that the case was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that appointment of guardians and administrators impose limitations on human rights.
LKZ [2023] QCAT 315

This case concerned applications filed by Dr Graeme Walker about LKZ, a 28-year-old woman who is 10 weeks pregnant and has impaired capacity. Dr Walker seeks the Tribunal’s approval for LKZ to undergo a pregnancy termination and a medical procedure which would involve the surgical removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes.
LN & Anor v LSS & Ors [2020] QCATA 18

This case concerned an application for leave to appeal a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision to change the terms of appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian for adult, LER. The Tribunal briefly mentioned the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in making a non-publication order and granting an extension of time for leave to appeal.
MGT [2021] QCAT 151

This matter concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as Guardian and Administrator respectively for MGT, in circumstances where the Public Guardian had made the accommodation decision to remove MGT from his mother’s (BC) place of residence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in acknowledging that certain fundamental human rights exist, irrespective of capacity.

Pages

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).

Pages

ELS v QPS – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 118

The appellant sought a preliminary decision about whether information filed by QPS was ‘criminal intelligence’ in proceedings involving a substantive review of three decisions relating to weapons licensing.
Elsworthy v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 412

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the COVID-19 Vaccination. The Commissioner did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights.
Figueiredo v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 052

The matter concerned the appeal of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the appellant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination. The appellant submitted he was exempt from the obligation based on a genuinely held religious belief however did not expressly refer to his rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Fletcher v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 045

The appellant in this case had sought an exemption to mandatory vaccination requirements on the basis of exceptional circumstances. These circumstances included concerns regarding a lack of consultation, safety, and efficacy of the vaccine, and the incursion upon the appellant’s human rights. The appellant asserted that mandatory vaccinations were a breach of section 17 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which provided the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service & Ors [2021] QIRC 255

The applicant sought declarations that the respondents had acted unlawfully under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by acting in a way that was incompatible with her right to freedom of expression (sections 21) and freedom of association (section 22(2)), and by failing to give proper consideration to her human rights. The Commission dismissed the application, on the basis that limitations were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.
Graffunder v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 76

The case concerned an appeal against a decision to suspend the Appellant’s employment as a health service employee without remuneration due to her inability to comply with Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 which required her vaccination against COVID-19.
GT v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 187

This matter concerned an application to stay the operation of the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ decision to immediately suspend the applicant’s driver authorisation number as a result of him being charged with domestic violence offences.
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].
Harry v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 293

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the Covid-19 Vaccination mandates. The applicant referred to their right to protection from torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment (section 17). The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission endorsed the decision made by the internal review and denied Harry’s application for an extension of time in which to commence the appeal.
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.

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