Date: 6 February 2023
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Member Lember
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 25, 26
Rights Considered: Right to privacy and reputation; Right to protection of families and children
Other Legislation: Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 46, 129, 130, 144, 174A, Schedule 1; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 32, 66
Keywords: Discrimination, Civil Procedure, Privacy and Confidentiality

This case concerned an application for an interim order to prohibit the respondent from restricting the applicant’s communications with Matthew Flinders Anglican College or their staff, pending resolution of a discrimination complaint before the Queensland Human Rights Commission. The applicant also sought a non-publication order which the Tribunal made, acknowledging the relevance of the rights to privacy and reputation (section 25) and the right to protection of families and children (section 26) in making that order, however there was no substantive discussion of the rights and they did not appear to bear on the decision to grant the order.

The Applicant suffered from Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD), which was an attribute prohibiting discrimination pursuant to section 46 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The Applicant had lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission, alleging victimization contrary to sections 129 and 130 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

The Applicant sought an interim order prohibiting the Respondent from restricting or otherwise interfering with the communications of the Applicant with the school, its staff or any associated bodies, pending the resolution of the complaint. The Tribunal refused the order.

The Applicant sought a non-publication order to preserve their anonymity. Section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) permits the Tribunal to make an order prohibiting publication of identifying information if necessary to, inter alia, avoid publicising confidential information or for any other reason in the interests of justice.

In considering whether to grant this order, the Tribunal noted the rights of the applicant and their family to privacy, and to the protection of families “as a fundamental group unit of society”: [38]. However, there was no substantive consideration of those rights. The order was instead granted because the medical evidence was confidential, and publication of the applicant’s identity may endanger the family’s mental health and impact their ability to engage in their local community.

Visit the judgement: Parent v Matthew Flinders Anglican College and Stuart Meade [2023] QCAT 42