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

SK (A Child) v Commissioner of Queensland Police & Anor [2023] QDC 65

The case concerned a challenge to a domestic violence protection order regarding a relationship between two 12-year-olds. In considering whether the appellant was afforded procedural fairness, the Court briefly mentioned ss 31-33 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), namely, the right to a fair hearing (section 31); rights in criminal proceedings (section 32); and rights of children in the criminal process (section 32). On this point, the Court decided that the appellant was not afforded procedural fairness as the proceeding to final orders was premature, the short adjournment did not afford the appellant child a reasonable opportunity to obtain representation by a lawyer, and the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court ultimately set aside the protection order.
SM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 116

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, SM. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply, as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
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).
SS v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 392

An application for the review of a negative blue card notice was brought by a full-time truck driver. Member Taylor found that, as the applicant had been convicted of a serious offence in 2004, as defined in the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), a negative notice must be issued unless an exceptional case exists in which it would not harm the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to be issued.
SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252

The applicant in this case applied for an administrative review of a decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether his case was an “exceptional case” in which it was not in the best interests of children for the applicant to hold a blue card.
ST v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2022] QCAT 1

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the Applicant’s changed circumstances were sufficient to warrant the case as exceptional such that a negative notice should be issued.
ST v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 337

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ST. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s right to privacy (section 25), right to taking part in public life (section 23), right to protection of families and children (section 26), right to education (section 36), cultural rights (section 27) and cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.
Storch v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 152

The self-represented applicant argued that the respondent’s decision to issue him with a negative blue card notice, despite him being acquitted at trial of a charge of indecent treatment of a child, was a breach of several rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
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.
TD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 138

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice on the basis that the applicant was an ‘exceptional case’. In deciding that the applicant was not an exceptional case, the Tribunal briefly considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) and considered that, to the extent that there were any limitations on those rights, those limitations were reasonable and justifiable.

Pages

Steinhardt v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 111

The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].
Storch v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 152

The self-represented applicant argued that the respondent’s decision to issue him with a negative blue card notice, despite him being acquitted at trial of a charge of indecent treatment of a child, was a breach of several rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119

The appellant, a Registered Nurse, appealed against Queensland Health’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a vaccination directive, which he requested on the basis of his religious beliefs: at [7], [8], [13], [31]. As an aspect of the appeal, the appellant alleged that his human rights were breached through religious discrimination: at [36].
Talbot v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 010
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).
Thomson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 402

This matter concerned the appeal of the respondent’s decision to continue the appellant’s suspension without remuneration for a further six months. The Commissioner considered the statutory requirements binding the respondent and found that respondent did not comply with all requirements.
TSG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 98

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 theft, drug-related and traffic offences. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the Act’s commencement. If the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, the Tribunal would have considered the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27) and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), right to a fair hearing (section 31); right to not be tried more than once (section 34), and right to education (section 36); as well as the competing right of every child to protection (section 26(2)).
Turay v Workers’ Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2023] ICQ 019

The case concerned two applications and a second appeal of a decision by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission regarding a claim for worker’s compensation after termination of employment as a registered nurse. The claim had been made some sixteen months late due to the appellant having suffered incapacitating mental health issues. The appellant had submitted that her human rights were being violated by a denial of a right to appeal. The Court considered that international conventions did not form a part of the domestic law of Queensland and that the appellant’s reliance on them was misplaced. Accordingly, the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not recognise a human right to an appeal. The appellant had already had her appeal; the right would only be relevant to the interpretation of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld); the legislation was clear and could not be construed consistently with any right to reopen a concluded appeal. The Court ultimately struck out the appeal.
Vale v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 438
VDG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 506

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 filming a person’s private parts without consent. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

Thorley v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 133

The appellant, a teacher, appealed against the Department of Education’s decision to suspend her without pay due to her failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination direction. The appellant argued that the decision made ‘an unjustifiable incursion’ on her human rights, and that the decision maker had no authority to ‘overrule’ section 4 of the Covid-19 Emergency Response Act (2020) (Qld) which states that it does not override the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
TRE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 306

This case concerned a self-represented applicant seeking review of the respondent’s decision to issue her with a negative blue card notice.
Vale v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 438
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).
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.
Wallace v Tannock [2023] QSC 122
Whiteley v Stone & Anor [2021] QSC 31

This case concerned an application for judicial review of a decision of the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy to cancel the applicant’s certificate of competency. The application was dismissed and the Court found that section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was not engaged when interpreting sections 12, 14 or 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).
William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 130

The case concerned a finding by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that the applicant had engaged in misconduct. The Tribunal determined that the limitations on the applicant’s human rights were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.
Witthahn & Ors v Wakefield (Chief Executive of Hospital & Health Services & Director General of Queensland Health) & Ors [2022] QSC 95

This was a costs decision. The applicants challenged the directives of the Chief Executive of Queensland Health to make COVID-19 vaccination compulsory for ambulance officers and nurses in public hospitals and sought relief and remedies under ss 59(2) and 58 of the Human Rights Act 2009 (Qld).
WMJ [2021] QCAT 283

This case concerned a review of the guardianship and administration appointments for WMJ. The Tribunal applied the General Principles in section 11B(3) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), including, in particular, the principle that the adult is entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms that apply to those with capacity.

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