Human Rights Case Law Project

The case concerned an application for an interim injunction involving a ‘piggy-back’ claim under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on a legal action under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). There was a serious claim to be tried in relation to the applicant’s claim as there was no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether the first respondent had fulfilled their substantive obligation to identify relevant human rights, set them out by reference to the facts, say how the decision will limit the human rights and say how the limits are reasonable and justified. The Tribunal also noted that it was bound to interpret section 59 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) in a way compatible with human rights but, beyond that, was acting in a judicial capacity exercising a judicial power in its consideration of the grant of an interim injunction, with the relevant rights in the exercise of that power being the right to recognition as a person before the law and the right to a fair hearing. The Tribunal ultimately determined that the applicant was entitled to the interim injunction.

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a rejected application for a parole order. The court found the Parole Board failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a parole order, and ordered that the original decision be set aside and remade according to law. The court found it was unnecessary to address the human rights put forward by the applicant, other than to highlight the Board’s concession that it failed to give express consideration to the applicant’s human rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD), and that the rights to freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and liberty are not rights which are held by prisoners.

The case concerned a decision to substantiate an allegation by the Respondent against the Applicant in circumstances where the Applicant was a Queensland Health employee and had contravened a direction to provide evidence of her COVID-19 vaccination.

This matter concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision made by the respondent that the appellant had not complied with the requirements of the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 by not receiving her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within the relevant time frame. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in an email to the respondent, where the appellant requested specific legislative references from relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that supported the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

​​​​​​​An action for judicial review was brought by a prisoner in relation to two decisions: the decision to impose a maximum security order (MSO) for a further six months (following seven years of being subject to such an order); and the decision to impose a no association order. The applicant claimed that the decision-maker breached the obligation to make decisions consistently with human rights, and to consider human rights in the making of decisions. The applicant failed to make out the claims with respect to the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the right to liberty and security of person, but was successful in making out the claim in relation to the right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty.  

This matter concerned an appeal against a suspension without pay decision. The appellant claimed that the Queensland Police Service had not acted with proper consideration of her human rights when it issued a notice of suspension after she declined a second COVID-19 vaccination. The Commission found that the notice addressed human rights in detail and that the appellant’s human rights had been considered. There was no substantive discussion of human rights in the reasons. The decision appealed against was confirmed.

The case concerned an application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory
COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers and certain staff members due to concern about a potential adverse reaction.

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements and failure to apply for an exemption. The appellant did not make any submissions expressly regarding the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and there was no substantive discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

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.

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).