A recent Supreme Court of Queensland decision has confirmed the need for local governments to have regard to human rights when drafting and enforcing their Local Laws.
The case of Tipler & Ors v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2025] QSC 194 concerned a group of homeless applicants who sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Moreton Bay Regional Council from removing a camp that had been established in a local government-controlled area.
The Enforcement Background
Moreton Bay Regional Council’s Camping on Public Land Local Law prohibits a person camping unless they have approval.  Council officers appeared at the camp, located in a park, three times.
In first two instances, Council issued notices requiring the campers to stop storing goods and camping at the park.  In the third case, the applicants alleged that the Council was accompanied by bulldozers and excavators to remove the applicants’ belongings.
The applicants moved to another park and sought a statutory review of Council’s actions at the previous park.  Council attempted the same enforcement steps at the second park, which prompted the applicants to seek an injunction to stop Council from removing them from the land whilst the review was underway.
Basis of Injunction
The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) restricts public entities from acting in a way that is incompatible with human rights. It was on this basis the applicants brought the injunction.
They specifically argued that the Human Rights Act provides that:
- Every person has a right to life;
- A person must not be treated or punished in a cruel, inhumane or degrading way;
- A person has a right not to have their privacy, family home, or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with; and
- Families are a fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected by society in the State.
On the other hand, Council argued:
- The camping was in contravention of its Local Laws;
- The injunction should not be granted because Council was not going to enforce the notices;
- Offers of alternative accommodation were offered but declined; and
- There were public health concerns at due to rubbish.
In Tipler, the Court was not asked to make a final decision about the purpose, effect or validity of the Local Laws or Council’s enforcement process. Instead, the Court was asked to decide whether it was appropriate to prevent Council from enforcing the Local Laws, while the ultimate challenge to Council’s decision-making under the Local Laws was being heard.
Human rights considerations prevail
The Court granted the injunction, and ordered that Council was restrained from taking action to enforce the Local Laws until further orders were made.
In making the decision, the Court had particular regard to provisions of the Human Rights Act that stated:
- It is unlawful for a public entity to make a decision that in a way that is not compatible with human rights;
- Human rights can be limited, but only to an extent which is justifiable under section 13 of the Human Rights Act; and
- Section 13 of the Act, which creates a test of proportionality, requiring the court to evaluate whether the relevant limitation on human rights is reasonable, including
- Whether it could be justified in a democratic society;
- The nature of the right;
- The nature of the limitation;
- The relationship between the limitation and its purpose;
- Whether there are any less restrictive and reasonably available ways to achieve the purpose;
- The importance of the limitation;
- The importance of preserving the human right.
Where to from here?
The decision in Tipler is part of a developing area of human rights law in Queensland that affects Councils, and has increased in prominence following the enactment of the Human Rights Act.
The case clearly demonstrates a willingness on the part of the Courts to utilise the Human Rights Act to restrain or impose limitations on Council decision-making, including to enforce provisions of Local Laws that were otherwise effectively enforced by the Council.
While decisions in cases like Tipler are heavily dependent on the fact scenario in the individual case, the general takeaway from the Court’s decision for local governments is to always remain aware of the need to apply the Human Rights Act in local government decision-making that might impact human rights. Decisions that might otherwise be consistent with adopted Local Laws or other legislative processes might still be prone to challenge, particularly in circumstances where the Court is not satisfied that all human rights considerations have been comprehensively evaluated.
Preston Law assists local governments throughout Queensland in developing and enforcing Local Laws, and we are familiar with how Human Rights Act limitations can impact enforcement activities. If you have any further queries about this blog or local government law generally, please contact our team.