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 (Assistant Leader), Rory Brown, Ben Cornwell, Carolyn Farago, Laura Hall, Anouk Hendriks, Thorida Kim, Sophie Little, Kano Nawagawa, Max Punin, Hannah Retief, Genevieve Rule, Imogen Ryan-Kerr, and 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

R v WTS [2022] QDCPR 57

This case concerned an application of the defendant to subpoena documents or records from an organisation that provided counselling services and support to a child complainant. Accordingly and on behalf of the defendant, an objection was raised as to the standing of the counselled child to be heard under criteria in s 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Long SC DCJ allowed the objection of the defendant to the counselled child being allowed leave to be heard, upon the broad basis on which the application had been sought. Sections 25 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were mentioned in the header, but there was no discussion of human rights.
RAH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 406

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RAH. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
RD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 253

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RD. RD had previous convictions for matters of violence but for offences which were neither ‘serious’ or ‘disqualifying’ under the Act.
RE and RL v Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women [2020] QCAT 151

Foster parents applied to the Tribunal to review decisions made by the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women to remove two children from their care and cancel their certificate of approval as foster carers. The Tribunal had regard to the applicants’ right to recognition and equality before the law but held that the right to protection of families did not apply as foster carers do not constitute “family” for the purpose of s 26 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The protection of children under s 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), was also considered in relation to the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld).
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.
RLJ v Direct-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 137

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RLJ. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s rights to a fair hearing (section 31) and not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34) as well as the right to protect families and children (section 26) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.
RNE [2022] QCAT 343

This matter was referred by the Childrens Court to QCAT to determine whether RNE had the capacity to understand ongoing child protection proceedings in the Children Court regarding his children, and whether a guardian should be appointed to make decisions for him in legal matters. Further tribunal-initiated applications were made relating to the protection of privacy for the children. These are the reasons for decisions made concerning the application for a confidentiality order and non-publication order.
SBN v Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs [2022] QCAT 321

This matter concerned an application filed by the respondent to dismiss the application made by the applicant (mother) to review a contact decision designed to facilitate contact between the applicant’s children. In the reasons for the decision, the Tribunal referred to the right to protection of families and children in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (sections 26(1) and (2)) to give context for the obligation to support the family and why the applicant was a person affected by the decision concerning contact with the child. The Tribunal did not engage in any substantive discussion of human rights. The respondent’s application to dismiss the applicant mother’s application was refused.
SDF v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2022] QCAT 198

The case concerned an application for review of a decision to issue a negative notice for a Blue Card where the applicant had been convicted of breaching domestic violence orders, breaching a suspended sentence, breaching a probation order, failing to appear in accordance with undertaking, breaching bail conditions, possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence.
SDS v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 165

The applicant was issued with a negative Blue Card notice following his being charged with criminal offences related to an incident he described as a ‘prank’. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice and stated that the respondent had appropriately acknowledged and considered the applicant’s human rights.

Pages

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).
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.
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).
Phillips v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2023] QIRC 019

This matter concerned the appeal of a decision made by the respondent to transfer the appellant to a new managerial position. The respondent claimed that the transfer was made due to ‘complex difficulties’ in the workplace, mental or physical illness or disability caused by work and an account from a medical practitioner that the appellant’s workplace issues were the source of their health issues.
PRH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 331
Re: Ipswich City Council [2020] QIRC 194

The case concerned an application seeking an exemption from the operation of s 14 and s 15 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of undertaking an affirmative action recruitment plan that targets only female waste truck drivers. The Commission was satisfied that the exemption was compatible with human rights and granted the exemption to the Ipswich City Council for a period of three years.

Pages

ZDA [2022] QCAT 167

ZDA was a 92-year-old hospital inpatient. Her nephew and a solicitor applied for interim appointment as her guardian and administrator respectively. In dismissing their application, Member Kanowski acknowledged ZDA’s right to the freedom to choose where to live (section 19) and their property rights (in restricting their control of their property) (section 24): at [16].

Pages

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.
Mizner v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) and Smith [2022] QCAT 245

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.
Morgan v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 280

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.

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