Civil Procedure

This case related to a decision about costs in a remitted hearing. In considering whether the Tribunal was bound to follow the doctrine of precedent, Member Gordon was prompted to consider whether the Tribunal was exercising judicial functions or administrative functions. The Tribunal considered that where a tribunal acts in an administrative capacity, it is less likely that the doctrine of precedent would apply. Member Gordon noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had prompted the Tribunal to consider when it is acting in an administrative capacity rather than judicial capacity but made no further reference to the legislation.

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 case concerned an application for leave to file an amended application for review of various administrative decisions under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). The Tribunal considered that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as it does not affect proceedings commenced before 1 January 2020.

This decision concerned an interlocutory application for a number of separate judicial review proceedings challenging COVID-19 vaccination directives to be heard on the same date. The court noted that one of its primary aims in managing the proceedings was to prevent a multiplicity of decisions that may give rise to different legal conclusions relevant to the provisions of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [4]. There was no specific discussion of the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to the case.

This decision concerned an interlocutory application regarding matters of civil procedure arising from defamation proceedings that were yet to be determined. The applicant sought to have their name anonymised in the court’s published reasons.

This case concerned proceedings relating to a challenge of a decision made by the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner to not accept a complaint made by the applicant. Martin SJA ordered the application to be adjourned to a date to be fixed and a contradictor to be appointed to assist the Court in dealing with the matter.

The plaintiff sought various forms of substantive relief on the basis of human rights, however the Court considered that this was based on a “fundamental misconstruction” of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and did not consider it necessary to deal with such submissions. As such, there was no substantive consideration of human rights by the Court.

The case concerned an application for a permanent stay of all the charges faced by the applicant in the Magistrates Court. The applicant broadly contended that he would never be in a position to obtain a fair and impartial hearing as the charges brought against him were fabricated ‘due to a sexual relationship between…[his] former de facto wife…and the arresting officer...’

This matter concerned an application by the respondent for leave to be legally represented pursuant to section 43 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), which was granted.

This case concerned an application for a costs order. The Court briefly discussed human rights but did not apply these principles to the matter at hand.