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

MAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 527

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MAP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to the duties it imposed upon the Tribunal, and the relevance of the right not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) to the operation of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (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).
ML v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 376

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ML. Member Ashman stated that ‘[t]he Tribunal must...consider the intent of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)’ but did not elaborate as to which specific considerations were relevant to this matter.
NGV v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 319

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to vocational education (section 36), and cultural rights (section 27) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to proceedings.
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.
NN and IN v Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women [2020] QCAT 146

The right to protection of families and children (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 26) was argued by the applicants and analysed by the court in the context of a foster child and his foster family. The court held that the term “family” was to be given a broad interpretation and understood in the society of a particular country.
PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188

A self-represented litigant sought judicial review after being issued a negative notice by Blue Card Services arguing that his case was ‘exceptional’. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal analysed limiting the applicant’s human rights and issued a non-publication order in light of the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)).
PPA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 166

This case concerned an application for a 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, but did not consider in detail, the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). The Tribunal also noted the right of children to the protection needed because of being a child (section 26(2)).
PRH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 331
PXS v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 342

This case concerned the reassessment of an applicant’s eligibility to hold a blue card after criminal charges against him had been finalised. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was included in the respondent’s written submissions, but was not considered in-depth by the Tribunal.

Pages

Herbert v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 415

This case concerned an appeal of a decision to reject a conversion to a higher classification position under the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld). In submissions, the respondent decision-maker had noted that, as required by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the appellant’s human rights had been considered, particularly the right to work embodied in article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There was no substantive discussion of human rights nor the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by the Commission.
Hunt v State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) [2022] QIRC 162

This matter involved an application for appeal of a disciplinary decision from the Respondent based on various allegations made in respect to the Applicant’s conduct during his employment.
Hurling v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 084

The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision to suspend them without remuneration, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the the Decision-Maker erred in applying s 58(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and also contravened s 58(1)(b).
Hurling v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 084

The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision to suspend them without remuneration, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the the Decision-Maker erred in applying s 58(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and also contravened s 58(1)(b).
Ingram v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2021] QIRC 011

This case concerned an appeal against a decision to not convert the appellant to a higher employment classification. The obligation imposed by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on public entities to consider human rights when making decisions was referenced within the relevant departmental directive, but there was no in-depth analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019.
Jin v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy) & Or [2023] QIRC 013

This case involved an application to progress a complaint that was originally made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, onto the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The complaint regarded an allegation of discrimination on the basis of race, from a job advertisement process conducted by the Queensland Art Gallery.
Jones v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 317

This matter concerned an appeal for a review of a decision to refuse the appointment of the appellant to a higher classification position. The applicant did not refer to any specific rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and the commission did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the appellant’s human rights.
Khan v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2020] QIRC 227

The appellant filed an appeal against a decision to not convert their employment to a higher classification level. Contained within a relevant policy directive was an acknowledgement of the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of this provision or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally.
Lee v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency) [2021] QIRC 013

This case concerns an appeal against a decision to refuse the appellants transfer request to a higher employment classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in regard to the obligation of the Department's decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.
Leggott v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2021] QIRC 30

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s decision to not convert the appellant’s employment status to a higher classification. Contained within a relevant policy directive was an acknowledgement of the requirement of public entities to make decisions compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of this provision or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally.

Pages

NHF [2021] QCAT 412

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of the Queensland as guardian and administrator, respectively, for NHF, revoking a previous Enduring Power of Attorney.
NHI [2022] QCAT 357; NHI [2022] QCAT 366

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland as guardian and administrator respectively, for a 90-year-old adult male (‘NHI’). NHI was diagnosed with dementia of mixed aetiology (amidst other health concerns), when admitted to hospital after being found on the floor in his remote residence, where he lives alone. The Tribunal briefly considered relevant human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), discussing that statutory provisions must be interpreted to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, and in a way compatible with human rights.
NJ [2022] QCAT 283

This case concerned an application seeking appointment of the Public Guardian for approval of restrictive practice, containment and seclusion in a memory support unit for people who suffer dementia: at [3]. The Tribunal were satisfied that the decision to appoint the Public Guardian pursuant to s 12 of Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) for the personal matter of giving consent was compatible with the human rights.
Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237

This case concerned the application for an order of a reportable death under the Coroners Act 2003. The jurisdiction of the District Court derives from section 11A of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld), which provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the State Coroner’s decision may apply for an order about whether it is a reportable death. The court did not engage in any substantive discussion regarding the Human Rights Act 2019; however, it was noted that the decision was found to be compatible with and to satisfy any operative provision of the Human Rights Act 2019.
PC [2022] QCAT 147

This case concerned a review of an application seeking to appoint the Public Advocate as guardian and the Public Trustee as administrator for PC by DB (PC’s carer and long-time friend and partner) and to remove a 2001 enduring power of attorney appointing PC’s daughters.
PJ [2021] QCAT 194

This case concerned applications for the removal of PL, PJ’s mother, as guardian and administrator of PJ, and the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal briefly considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and was satisfied that the limits imposed by the guardianship order were reasonable and justified in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
R v Finn [2023] QSC 10

This matter concerned the sentencing of the defendant, an Afghanistan war-veteran who developed PTSD and other mental health issues after serving three tours of duty. The Court was concerned, after reading a psychologist’s sentencing report, about the failure of Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) to facilitate the defendant’s treatment and rehabilitation and uphold the defendant’s rights to access medical treatment.
REN [2022] QCAT 313

This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian for REN where his daughter (RAD) and nephew (SR) nominated themselves as prospective guardians. In making an order that RAD and SR be appointed as guardians, Member McDonald acknowledged the limitations on REN’s human rights, concluding they were both reasonable and necessary.
TCN v Public Guardian & anor [2022] QCATA 158

The case concerned an appeal of a decision which included an application for notices to produce documents where they may be relevant to capacity, subsequent to the making of an enduring power of attorney appointing the respondent as attorney for the application.
TPO [2022] QCAT 232

This matter concerned an application for an interim order for a guardian and administrator for TPO, brought by his daughter DTA, on the basis of alleged misconduct by WFA, TPO’s de facto partner and power of attorney.

Pages

Hutchison v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 317

This matter concerned a fair treatment appeal against a finding that grounds for discipline had been established after the appellant was convicted of fraud and her employer (the respondent) found her guilty of misconduct under the Public Service Act. The appellant referred to their right to a fair and public hearing (section 31), right to legal representation and the use of a witness in a criminal trial (sections 32(2)(d)-(h)) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34).
Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 1) [2020] QSC 273; Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC 293; Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 3) [2020] QSC 320

A self-represented litigant applied to the Court of Disputed Returns for orders to quash the result of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council election and bring about a new election. The Court found that the applicant’s submissions alleged a breach of the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and the right to take part in public life (section 23). However, the Court held that any limitation on human rights was reasonable and justifiable pursuant to s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Ishiyama & Ors v Dr Peter Aitken, Former Chief Health Officer & Ors; Baxter & Ors v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer & Anor; Hunt & Ors v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer & Anor [2022] QSC 41

The case concerned a challenge to directions of the Chief Health Officer (CHO) under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which came about because the applicants' requested reasons for the making of the decisions to make the relevant directions. The CHO refused to give reasons on the basis that his decision to make the directions was of a legislative character, not an administrative character, and that therefore he was not obliged to give reasons. The Court agreed with the CHO. There was no discussion of human rights.
JDT v PDL (No 2) [2022] QDC 147

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.
Jelacic v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) [2021] QIRC 384

The case concerned an appeal of finding and disciplinary decisions concerning five allegations associated with an alleged failure to comply with a workplace directive to wear a facemask.
Jin v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy) & Or [2023] QIRC 013

This case involved an application to progress a complaint that was originally made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, onto the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The complaint regarded an allegation of discrimination on the basis of race, from a job advertisement process conducted by the Queensland Art Gallery.
Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of Police & Anor; Witthahn & Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Director General of Queensland Health & Ors [2021] QSC 275

Seven police officers sought review of the decision by the Commissioner to issue a Direction requiring all police officers and some frontline staff members to receive two COVID-19 vaccinations by certain dates and to provide evidence of having done so. Contemporaneously, twelve ambulance officers and one nurse brought an application on the same terms against the Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Commissioner of Queensland Ambulance Services. Solicitors and counsel for the applicants in both applications were the same and the matters were heard together.
Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of Police (Qld) & Ors; Witthahn & Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital & Health Services & Director General of Queensland Health & Ors; Sutton & Ors v Commissioner of Police (Qld) & Ors; Baxter & Ors v Chief Health Officer & Ors

The four proceedings (Johnston, Whitthahn, Sutton and Baxter) involve applicants challenging the directives of the Executive which require them to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before entering particular premises or attending particular workplaces. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.
Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of Police (Qld) & Ors; Witthahn & Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital & Health Services & Director General of Queensland Health & Ors; Sutton & Ors v Commissioner of Police (Qld) & Ors; Baxter & Ors v Chief Health Officer & Ors

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.
Jones v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 317

This matter concerned an appeal for a review of a decision to refuse the appointment of the appellant to a higher classification position. The applicant did not refer to any specific rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and the commission did not engage in any substantive discussion in respect to the appellant’s human rights.

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

Collaborate with us 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 X

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