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

KTG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 157

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card, following receipt of information that the applicant’s kinship carer certificate had been cancelled following findings that he had failed to protect a child in his care from sexual abuse by an adult member of the household.
KWT v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 122

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, KWT. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that it was required by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to provide proper consideration to any relevant human rights, but did not substantively discuss human rights.
LAF v AP [2022] QDC 66

The case concerned an appeal against the decision of the Noosa Magistrates Court to dismiss the appellant’s application for a protection order and to grant the respondent a protection order.
LB v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 140

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, LB. LB had criminal convictions as a minor, including threatening with weapon, in the context of an abusive domestic relationship. The Tribunal considered LB’s cultural rights, right to a fair hearing, right not to be tried or punished more than once, and right to education, as well as the right of every child to protection.
LO v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 16

The applicant was issued a negative blue card notice on the basis of her criminal history. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and set aside the decision as her criminal history was recognised to be of limited relevance.
LSR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 380

The case concerned a review of a negative Blue Card notice. The Tribunal determined that they were required to comply with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provision directed at public entities and that the limitations to human rights from refusing to issue the blue card, excluding the media and public, and issuing the non-publication order were reasonable and justifiable. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that it was not satisfied the applicant’s case was an exceptional case and therefore it would be in the interests of children for her to be issued with a ‘working with children clearance.’
MAJ v Director-General Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 324

This matter 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 noted that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) the right not to be punished more than once for an offence (section 34), as well as the rights 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 (section 26) were relevant, but found that this decision does not limit the applicant’s rights or the rights of children to protection and is therefore compatible with human rights.
MAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 527

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MAP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to the duties it imposed upon the Tribunal, and the relevance of the right not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) to the operation of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
MK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 62

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MK. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant's right to take part in public life (section 23), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)), under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
ML v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 376

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ML. Member Ashman stated that ‘[t]he Tribunal must...consider the intent of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)’ but did not elaborate as to which specific considerations were relevant to this matter.

Pages

Wallace v Tannock [2023] QSC 122
Wood v The King & Anor [2022] QSC 216

The applicant sought a declaration from the District Court, under section 29(7) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that his detention for offences for which he failed to appear was unlawful. Upon referral to the Supreme Court, it was held that section 29(7) recognises a human right to apply for a declaration as to the lawfulness of detention, but does not vest jurisdiction for declaratory relief in lower courts. The human right contained in section 29(7) would be accommodated in this, and other cases, by applying for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court.
Woolston v Commissioner of Police [2022] QDC 70

The Appellant appealed against two convictions for failing to provide a specimen of breath as required by police, and contended that the Magistrate who handed down the convictions had erred with respect to consideration of section 37 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which concerned the right to health services.
Young v Dawson (No. 2) [2022] QCAT 48

The applicant was a police officer who was charged with four disciplinary allegations and found guilty by the respondent. The Tribunal noted that it was required under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to have regard to the applicant’s human rights, and found that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21) and right to not have his reputation unlawfully attacked (section 25(b)) were potentially limited. The Tribunal was satisfied that limitations on these rights were consistent with the proper purpose of upholding public confidence in the police service and ensuring police discipline.

Pages

Health Ombudsman v ORC [2020] QCAT 181

The right to a fair hearing, specifically the right to have all judgments and decisions made publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)) was noted by the Tribunal. It was ordered that due to delays in the matter, publication of materials which could identify the respondent was prohibited.
Herbert v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 415

This case concerned an appeal of a decision to reject a conversion to a higher classification position under the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld). In submissions, the respondent decision-maker had noted that, as required by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the appellant’s human rights had been considered, particularly the right to work embodied in article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There was no substantive discussion of human rights nor the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by the Commission.
Hunt v State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) [2022] QIRC 162

This matter involved an application for appeal of a disciplinary decision from the Respondent based on various allegations made in respect to the Applicant’s conduct during his employment.
Hurling v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 084

The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision to suspend them without remuneration, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the the Decision-Maker erred in applying s 58(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and also contravened s 58(1)(b).
Hurling v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 084

The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision to suspend them without remuneration, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the the Decision-Maker erred in applying s 58(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and also contravened s 58(1)(b).
Ingram v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2021] QIRC 011

This case concerned an appeal against a decision to not convert the appellant to a higher employment classification. The obligation imposed by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on public entities to consider human rights when making decisions was referenced within the relevant departmental directive, but there was no in-depth analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019.
Jin v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy) & Or [2023] QIRC 013

This case involved an application to progress a complaint that was originally made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, onto the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The complaint regarded an allegation of discrimination on the basis of race, from a job advertisement process conducted by the Queensland Art Gallery.
Jin v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy) [2023] ICQ 10

This case concerned an application for a review of a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission by Yin Cheng Jin, where the Queensland Human Rights Commission rejected a complaint by Mr Jin under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
Jones v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 317

This matter concerned an appeal for a review of a decision to refuse the appointment of the appellant to a higher classification position. The applicant did not refer to any specific rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and the commission did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the appellant’s human rights.
Khan v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2020] QIRC 227

The appellant filed an appeal against a decision to not convert their employment to a higher classification level. Contained within a relevant policy directive was an acknowledgement of the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of this provision or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally.

Pages

MJP [2020] QCAT 253

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal reviewed guardianship appointments for MJP, a young man who is unable to communicate decisions about his life.
MTC [2022] QCAT 432

This matter concerned multiple issues arising out of a guardianship application for MTC. MTC’s children SNB, SNE and DTA sought to replace the Public Trustee as MTC’s guardian and administrator, subject to a loan dispute with MTC’s other child, SND, being resolved. The Tribunal recognised that the appointment of an ongoing administrator would impact MTC’s property rights under section 24 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), noting that although the appointment of administrator does not deprive an adult of their ownership of property, it does remove their control over the property.
MTD [2022] QCAT 89

This matter concerned an application to appoint a guardian and administrator for MTD under an interim order because of capacity concerns. The Tribunal found that limits on MTD’s freedom of movement (section 19) and right to privacy and reputation (section 25) that would result from an interim order, were not reasonable and justified in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
MXQ [2021] QCAT 381

This application concerned the appointment of a guardian and administrator for MXQ, the making of a confidentiality order, and the making of orders limiting information sharing with particular individuals.
NHF [2021] QCAT 412

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of the Queensland as guardian and administrator, respectively, for NHF, revoking a previous Enduring Power of Attorney.
NHI [2022] QCAT 357; NHI [2022] QCAT 366

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland as guardian and administrator respectively, for a 90-year-old adult male (‘NHI’). NHI was diagnosed with dementia of mixed aetiology (amidst other health concerns), when admitted to hospital after being found on the floor in his remote residence, where he lives alone. The Tribunal briefly considered relevant human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), discussing that statutory provisions must be interpreted to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, and in a way compatible with human rights.
NJ [2022] QCAT 283

This case concerned an application seeking appointment of the Public Guardian for approval of restrictive practice, containment and seclusion in a memory support unit for people who suffer dementia: at [3]. The Tribunal were satisfied that the decision to appoint the Public Guardian pursuant to s 12 of Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) for the personal matter of giving consent was compatible with the human rights.
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.
Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237

This case concerned the application for an order of a reportable death under the Coroners Act 2003. The jurisdiction of the District Court derives from section 11A of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld), which provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the State Coroner’s decision may apply for an order about whether it is a reportable death. The court did not engage in any substantive discussion regarding the Human Rights Act 2019; however, it was noted that the decision was found to be compatible with and to satisfy any operative provision of the Human Rights Act 2019.
PC [2022] QCAT 147

This case concerned a review of an application seeking to appoint the Public Advocate as guardian and the Public Trustee as administrator for PC by DB (PC’s carer and long-time friend and partner) and to remove a 2001 enduring power of attorney appointing PC’s daughters.

Pages

Hunt & Ors v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer & Anor; Ishiyama & Ors v Dr Peter Aitken, Former Chief Health Officer & Ors; Baxter & Ors v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer & Anor 2022 QCA 263

This case concerned an application for judicial review of public health directives. The appellants also sought relief under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but the court did not substantively discuss the claim.
Hutchison v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 317

This matter concerned a fair treatment appeal against a finding that grounds for discipline had been established after the appellant was convicted of fraud and her employer (the respondent) found her guilty of misconduct under the Public Service Act. The appellant referred to their right to a fair and public hearing (section 31), right to legal representation and the use of a witness in a criminal trial (sections 32(2)(d)-(h)) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34).
Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 1) [2020] QSC 273; Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC 293; Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 3) [2020] QSC 320

A self-represented litigant applied to the Court of Disputed Returns for orders to quash the result of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council election and bring about a new election. The Court found that the applicant’s submissions alleged a breach of the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and the right to take part in public life (section 23). However, the Court held that any limitation on human rights was reasonable and justifiable pursuant to s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Ishiyama & Ors v Dr Peter Aitken, Former Chief Health Officer & Ors; Baxter & Ors v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer & Anor; Hunt & Ors v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer & Anor [2022] QSC 41

The case concerned a challenge to directions of the Chief Health Officer (CHO) under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which came about because the applicants' requested reasons for the making of the decisions to make the relevant directions. The CHO refused to give reasons on the basis that his decision to make the directions was of a legislative character, not an administrative character, and that therefore he was not obliged to give reasons. The Court agreed with the CHO. There was no discussion of human rights.
JDT v PDL (No 2) [2022] QDC 147

This decision concerned an interlocutory application regarding matters of civil procedure arising from defamation proceedings that were yet to be determined. The applicant sought to have their name anonymised in the court’s published reasons.
Jelacic v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) [2021] QIRC 384

The case concerned an appeal of finding and disciplinary decisions concerning five allegations associated with an alleged failure to comply with a workplace directive to wear a facemask.
Jin v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy) & Or [2023] QIRC 013

This case involved an application to progress a complaint that was originally made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, onto the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The complaint regarded an allegation of discrimination on the basis of race, from a job advertisement process conducted by the Queensland Art Gallery.
Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of Police & Anor; Witthahn & Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Director General of Queensland Health & Ors [2021] QSC 275

Seven police officers sought review of the decision by the Commissioner to issue a Direction requiring all police officers and some frontline staff members to receive two COVID-19 vaccinations by certain dates and to provide evidence of having done so. Contemporaneously, twelve ambulance officers and one nurse brought an application on the same terms against the Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Commissioner of Queensland Ambulance Services. Solicitors and counsel for the applicants in both applications were the same and the matters were heard together.
Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of Police (Qld) & Ors; Witthahn & Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital & Health Services & Director General of Queensland Health & Ors; Sutton & Ors v Commissioner of Police (Qld) & Ors; Baxter & Ors v Chief Health Officer & Ors

The four proceedings (Johnston, Whitthahn, Sutton and Baxter) involve applicants challenging the directives of the Executive which require them to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before entering particular premises or attending particular workplaces. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.
Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of Police (Qld) & Ors; Witthahn & Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital & Health Services & Director General of Queensland Health & Ors; Sutton & Ors v Commissioner of Police (Qld) & Ors; Baxter & Ors v Chief Health Officer & Ors

This decision concerned an interlocutory application for a number of separate judicial review proceedings challenging COVID-19 vaccination directives to be heard on the same date. The court noted that one of its primary aims in managing the proceedings was to prevent a multiplicity of decisions that may give rise to different legal conclusions relevant to the provisions of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [4]. There was no specific discussion of the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to the case.

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