Human Rights Case Law Project

Published cases referring to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

The UQ 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 (Assistant Leader), Ben Cornwell, Emma Kendall, Carolyn Farago, Genevieve Rule, Georgia Williams.

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

ED v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 56

This case concerned an application to review the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant, ED. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned only in reference to the Tribunal being a public entity and therefore obligated to make decisions compatible with human rights under section 58.
FGH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 401

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, FGH.
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).
HK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 130

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, HK. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal stated that it considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and held that any limitations on HK’s human rights were reasonable and justifiable pursuant to section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
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.
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.
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.
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.

Pages

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).
MWCW and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 777

The applicant sought a review of the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to mandatorily cancel his Visa as he did not pass the character test prescribed in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in a report by Queensland Corrective Services where they said they had considered the applicant’s human rights when determining that he required the level of structured supervision afforded to prisoners managed as high security.
Owen-D’Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273

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.
R v Hickey [2020] QCA 206

This case concerned an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against a sentence, in which the applicant relied on the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the argument faced ‘insurmountable hurdles’ and dismissed the application.
R v Logan [2020] QDCPR 67

The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. In written submissions, Counsel for the applicant raised the applicant’s right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Horneman-Wren SC DCJ discussed the relevance of this right in the context of the application and ordered that the trial proceed on a judge alone basis.
R v Mitchell [2020] QDC 89

The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
R v Morrison [2020] QCA 187

The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by the District Court on the ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive.
R v NGK [2020] QDCPR 77

The respondent applied for a no jury trial in circumstances where measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic had prevented all new jury trials from proceeding. The respondent raised the right to be tried without unreasonable delay in section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The court found that the appropriate consideration was whether the making of a no jury order was ‘in the interests of justice.’
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.

Pages

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).
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

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.
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.
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).
Petrak v Griffith University & Ors [2020] QCAT 351

This case considered whether Griffith University and two of its employees victimised or directly discriminated against the applicant on the basis of her impairment, family responsibilities and political beliefs. The Tribunal noted that proceeding to a final decision ‘on the papers’ appropriately balanced each party’s right to a fair hearing under section 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
PRH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 331
REB v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 312

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, REB, due to a previous conviction for contravening a Protection Order naming his former partner and her children.
Schimke v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) [2020] QIRC 205

The appellant sought to challenge the outcome of a review of her employment status. Contained within the relevant policy directive was a provision acknowledging the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of the provision in the directive or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally.
SF v Department of Education [2021] QCAT 10

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).

Pages

HAW [2021] QCAT 252

HAJ, the appointed attorney for HAW in relation to financial, personal and health matters, filed an application seeking authorisation of a conflict transaction. The Tribunal was satisfied that authorising these transactions was compatible with HAW’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), specifically HAW’s property rights.
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.
HFI [2020] QCAT 481

This case concerned an application for a confidentiality order, protecting personal information that the Tribunal held pertaining to HFI. In making this confidentiality order, Member Goodman recognised that any infringement of HFI’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were reasonably justified in order to prevent serious harm to HFI.
HH [2021] QCAT 103

This particular hearing concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland to manage HH’s personal and financial decisions, respectively. In its reasons, the Tribunal recognised that it was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal noted that such an appointment on an interim basis without a fair hearing is a serious incursion on a person’s human rights.
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’.
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.
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.
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).

Pages

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.
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).
Mohr-Edgar v State of Queensland (Legal Aid Queensland) [2020] QIRC 136

In her complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), the Applicant referred to employees of Legal Aid Queensland. Legal Aid Queensland made an application seeking suppression orders within these proceedings, citing the right to privacy and reputation contained in section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
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)).
SF v Department of Education [2021] QCAT 10

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).
The State of Queensland through the Department of Housing and Public Works v Tenant [2020] QCAT 144

The Department of Housing and Public Works sought to terminate the self-represented respondent’s State Tenancy Agreement on the basis of the ‘objectionable behaviour’ of the Respondent.
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.
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

Spedding Estates Pty Ltd ATF The Spedding Family Trust v Cotterill & Downie [2022] QCATA 3

This case involved an appeal of the Tribunal’s decision that a contract between the two parties was frustrated as a result of COVID-19 government restrictions. The Tribunal recognised that it was bound by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and that a person has a right to have a civil proceeding decided by a court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing (section 31).
Tamarin Pty Ltd & Otmoor Pty Ltd as Trustee v Wicks [2021] QCATA 146

This matter concerned a minor civil dispute claim by a commercial lessor against the directors of the lessee company for various costs including rental arrears. The relevant issue on appeal was whether a decision by an adjudicator not to call for submissions regarding the issue of jurisdiction was a breach of natural justice.
The Australian Institute for Progress Ltd v The Electoral Commission of Queensland & Ors [2020] QSC 54

A political think tank argued that provisions of the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) limited the freedom of expression and the right to take part in public life contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Applegarth J held that the limitations were proportionate and reasonable.
The State of Queensland through the Department of Housing and Public Works v Tenant [2020] QCAT 144

The Department of Housing and Public Works sought to terminate the self-represented respondent’s State Tenancy Agreement on the basis of the ‘objectionable behaviour’ of the Respondent.
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.
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).
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.

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

We are looking for organisations to collaborate with 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 Twitter 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