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

NGV v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 319

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to vocational education (section 36), and cultural rights (section 27) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to proceedings.
NK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 270

This case concerned a review of a decision to issue the applicant with a negative notice for a Blue Card on the basis that he had a history of being violent. The decision to deny a Blue Card was ultimately upheld, the best interests of children taking priority over the applicant’s interests, which the tribunal stated was consistent with human rights considerations in the circumstances. There was no significant human rights discussion.
NN and IN v Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women [2020] QCAT 146

The right to protection of families and children (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 26) was argued by the applicants and analysed by the court in the context of a foster child and his foster family. The court held that the term “family” was to be given a broad interpretation and understood in the society of a particular country.
NPK v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 395

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 noted that the limitation of human rights (section 13) and cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant.
NTT v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 120

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s submissions that contended the grant of an earlier Notice to Produce was a breach of the rights to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to a fair hearing (section 31) pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal otherwise said it considered the applicant’s human rights submissions but that any limitation was justified, without providing reasoning.
OSL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 266

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal referred to its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), recognised that the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) was engaged but did not substantively consider any limitation or provide justification for its conclusion that any limitations on the rights of the applicant were justified.
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)).
PPA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 166

This case concerned an application for a 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, but did not consider in detail, the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). The Tribunal also noted the right of children to the protection needed because of being a child (section 26(2)).
PRH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 331
PRL v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 250

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal affirmed the Respondent’s decision. Although the Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), there was no genuine consideration of the rights of the applicant that were engaged or may be limited.

Pages

Lee v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency) [2021] QIRC 013

This case concerns an appeal against a decision to refuse the appellants transfer request to a higher employment classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in regard to the obligation of the Department's decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.
Leggott v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2021] QIRC 30

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s decision to not convert the appellant’s employment status to a higher classification. Contained within a relevant policy directive was an acknowledgement of the requirement of public entities to make decisions compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of this provision or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally.
Luna v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 419

This Matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse remuneration to the applicant for suspended employment due to non-compliance with COVID-19 directions. The applicant did not refer to any specific human right under the Act, however the respondent referred to section 13 of the Human Rights Act that affords for the restriction of the prescribed human rights. The Commission did not engage in any further substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights. The initial decision was affirmed.
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.
MB [2022] QCAT 185

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MB. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal considered property rights, the right to privacy and reputation, the right to protection of families and children, the right to a fair hearing, the right not to be tried or punished more than once and the right to education.
McMillan v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2021] QIRC 018

This case concerned an appeal against a decision by the Department of Housing and Public Works not to convert the appellant’s employment to a higher classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in a directive that imposed an obligation on decision makers to act in a way that was compatible with human rights, but there was no further discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (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).
Navartam v Ferry [2023] QIRC 154

This matter concerned a successful application made by Mr Anthony Ferry ('the First Respondent') and the State of Queensland, through the Department of Employment, Small Business and Training ('the Second Respondent') for leave to be given to be legally represented before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.
NK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 270

This case concerned a review of a decision to issue the applicant with a negative notice for a Blue Card on the basis that he had a history of being violent. The decision to deny a Blue Card was ultimately upheld, the best interests of children taking priority over the applicant’s interests, which the tribunal stated was consistent with human rights considerations in the circumstances. There was no significant human rights discussion.
Oss v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 155

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to impose a disciplinary penalty which reduced her classification from Clinical Nurse (NG6) to Registered Nurse (NG5).

Pages

PGV [2023] QCAT 130

The decision relates to a man in his mid-60s with alcoholic dementia, PGV, who applied to the Tribunal for a declaration about his capacity and a revocation of the appointment of his guardians. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right not to be treated in a degrading way (section 17) and his right to freedom of movement (section 19) in the context of determining whether a guardian should continue to be appointed.
PJ [2021] QCAT 194

This case concerned applications for the removal of PL, PJ’s mother, as guardian and administrator of PJ, and the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal briefly considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and was satisfied that the limits imposed by the guardianship order were reasonable and justified in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
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.
Re ICO [2023] QMHC 1

This case involved an appeal of a Mental Health Review Tribunal decision to approve treatments of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for the appellant against her wishes. The Court had to consider whether the appellant could provide informed consent and whether ECT was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court acknowledged the appellant’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy (section 25), right to liberty and security of person (section 29), right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 30), and right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) and considered the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was consistent with its task under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld).
REN [2022] QCAT 313

This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian for REN where his daughter (RAD) and nephew (SR) nominated themselves as prospective guardians. In making an order that RAD and SR be appointed as guardians, Member McDonald acknowledged the limitations on REN’s human rights, concluding they were both reasonable and necessary.
RFJ [2023] QCAT 69

The case concerned an application for interim orders seeking urgent cessation of the Public Trustee of Queensland’s appointment as administrator for RFJ for all financial decisions except for day-to-day finances and Centrelink payments. In dismissing the application, the Tribunal acknowledged the ongoing appointment would limit RFJ’s right to freedom of movement (s 19), property rights (s 24), the right to privacy and reputation (s 25), and the right to liberty and security of person (s 29) but was satisfied the limits were reasonable and justified, particularly in the absence of urgent and compelling evidence to counter the initial appointment.
TAJ (costs) [2023] QCAT 133

This case related to a decision about costs in a remitted hearing. In considering whether the Tribunal was bound to follow the doctrine of precedent, Member Gordon was prompted to consider whether the Tribunal was exercising judicial functions or administrative functions. The Tribunal considered that where a tribunal acts in an administrative capacity, it is less likely that the doctrine of precedent would apply. Member Gordon noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had prompted the Tribunal to consider when it is acting in an administrative capacity rather than judicial capacity but made no further reference to the legislation.
TCN v Public Guardian & anor [2022] QCATA 158

The case concerned an appeal of a decision which included an application for notices to produce documents where they may be relevant to capacity, subsequent to the making of an enduring power of attorney appointing the respondent as attorney for the application.
TPO [2022] QCAT 232

This matter concerned an application for an interim order for a guardian and administrator for TPO, brought by his daughter DTA, on the basis of alleged misconduct by WFA, TPO’s de facto partner and power of attorney.
VSI v The Public Guardian & Ors [2023] QCATA 25

This case concerned an appeal by VSI, the son of VR, of various decisions of the tribunal by different members on different dates: as at [2]. These decisions were made under relevant provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) and the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld).

Pages

Jones v Commissioner of Police [2023] QDC 113

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed for the appellant’s failure to give way to a motor car vehicle or pedestrian at a stop sign. The appellant referred to their right to fair hearing (section 31) and submitted that law relating to failing to give way is an arbitrary and invalid law.
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.
Lawrence v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCATA 134

This matter concerns an appeal from a decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner (“the OIC”) to withhold certain documents in response to an application for release under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). The tribunal confirmed the plaintiff’s right to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal under s 132 of the Act, and that such a review will be confined to questions of law, and is in this regard, similar to a judicial review. The Tribunal confirmed the original decision and stated that the original decision had regard to section 21 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that no error of law was made. The Tribunal also considered a person’s right to privacy, section 25 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), as being a factor favouring non-disclosure.
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.
Luna v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 419

This Matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse remuneration to the applicant for suspended employment due to non-compliance with COVID-19 directions. The applicant did not refer to any specific human right under the Act, however the respondent referred to section 13 of the Human Rights Act that affords for the restriction of the prescribed human rights. The Commission did not engage in any further substantive discussion in respect to the applicant’s human rights. The initial decision was affirmed.
Marino Law v VC ([2021]) QCAT 348

This case concerned an application for reopening a previous Tribunal matter in circumstances where the Applicant did not attend the hearing in question. The Tribunal referred to s 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) where it was considered that it is the human right of an individual to have a civil proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or Tribunal after a fair hearing.
MB [2022] QCAT 185

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MB. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal considered property rights, the right to privacy and reputation, the right to protection of families and children, the right to a fair hearing, the right not to be tried or punished more than once and the right to education.
McGuire v Nikola McWilliam t/as McGrath Legal [2022] QCATA 064

This case concerned an appeal of a Tribunal decision that found a signatory personally liable for fees under a client agreement. The applicant complained that there was a breach of natural justice in the making of the initial decision.
McIver v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 121

Mr Adrian McIver (the appellant), an Information Technology Officer, appealed against the respondent’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a COVID-19 vaccination directive.
McPaul v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 175

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.

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