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

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).
SFV v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 223

The case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant on 6 April 2020. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that this was an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 221(1) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) was confirmed.
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).
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

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).
Sheraton v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 431

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, Sheraton. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34) and the rights of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal confirmed the respondent’s decision and was satisfied that its decision was compatible with these human rights.
Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) & Anor [2022] QIRC 462

The case concerned an application for leave to be legally represented. The Court considered that the applicant’s right to equal protection would not be compromised, and ultimately granted leave.
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.
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].
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).

Pages

Neville v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 92

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.
Niewiadomski v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 062

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.
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.
Philipson v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 183

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.
Ryle v Venables & Ors [2021] QSC 60

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).
Sandy v Queensland Human Rights Commissioner [2022] QSC 277

The applicant sought judicial review in relation to a decision by the Commissioner of the Queensland Human Rights Commission to reject a discrimination complaint, including on the ground that the decision was unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Court did not analyse this ground in depth as it did not apply to the decision of the Commissioner which was beyond power under section 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and therefore not within the scope of section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
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).
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].
Stys v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 265

This matter concerned an appeal brought against the Queensland Ambulance Service’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
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].

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