Ryle v Venables & Ors [2021] QSC 60

Date: 31 March 2021
Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of Queensland
Judicial Officer: Davis J
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 3, 118
Rights Considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) ss 14A, 14B; Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 6, 7, 8, 15, 23A, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 154A, 158, 164A, 166, 167, 168, 174B, 174C, 175, 178, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209; Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 429, 448, 451; Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss 4, 7, 20, 23; Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld) ss 11, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44; Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld); Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 171
Keywords: Discrimination; Public Law Considerations: Judicial Review

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).

The case involved a complaint of ‘reprisal’ contrary to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld) and a complaint of impairment discrimination contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld): at [2]. Both complaints were directed to the Anti-Discrimination Commission but were made after the exhaustion of the relevant statutory time limit: at [2]. The reprisal complaint was accepted by the first respondent acting as the delegate of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, but the complaint of impairment discrimination was rejected by the first respondent acting as the delegate of the Human Rights Commissioner on the basis it was out of time: at [6]. The application for judicial review was unsuccessful, as there was no error of law, no failure to exercise discretion, no failure to take into account relevant considerations and no taking into account of irrelevant considerations: at [92], [111], [115].

The Court outlined that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was passed to protect and promote human rights, citing section 3, while amending various statutes, including the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld); that section 118 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) replaced the Anti-Discrimination Commission with the Human Rights Commission; that the office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner became the office of the Human Rights Commissioner; that the Human Rights Commissioner retained the rights and duties under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) which had formally been held by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and that the Human Rights Commissioner also acquired new rights and duties under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [4]-[5].

Visit the judgment: Ryle v Venables & Ors [2021] QSC 60