Catalan v Romania (Application No. 13003/04) [2018] ECHR (9 January 2018)The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Romanian Government’s decision to dismiss a member of the public service for the unauthorised disclosure of state documents obtained outside his employment to a tabloid newspaper was a legitimate restriction of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In doing so, the Court emphasised the particular obligation of loyalty held by public servants and the need to prevent disclosure of confidential information and protect the rights of others.

ZD v Secretary to the Department of Health and Human Services [2017] VSC 806 (22 December 2017)The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the Children's Court Magistrate had the power to authorise the vaccination of three young children as a condition of interim accommodation orders under the Children Youth and Families Act 2005, contrary to the wishes of both parents. Justice Osborn held that s 263(7) of the CYFA is only capable of one interpretation and therefore the rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (VIC) were not relevant to the construction of the subsection.

Maythem Kamil Radhi (Appellant) v The District Court of Manukau (The First Respondent) and The Commonwealth of Australia (The Second Respondent) [2017] NZSC 198The Australian Federal Police sought the extradition of a New Zealand resident, alleging that he was involved in helping asylum seekers travel from Indonesia to Australia. The New Zealand Supreme Court found that although the man was eligible for surrender, there was a "real risk" that he would be subjected to indefinite administrative detention once in Australia and that this risk constituted a compelling or extraordinary circumstance warranting referral to the Minister.

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v Schrenk [2017] 2 SCR 795The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the law prohibits discrimination perpetrated against an employee by any person integral to their employment context, not just someone with managerial control.

BRF038 v The Republic of Nauru [2017] HCA 56; HFM045 v The Republic of Nauru [2017] HCA 50; DWN042 v The Republic of Nauru [2017] HCA 56The Nauruan Government recently abolished the mechanism by which parties could appeal decisions from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court of Australia, leaving asylum seekers without an avenue of appeal to challenge unsuccessful decisions of the Supreme Court. This move has come shortly after the High Court's recent landmark decision in BRF038 v The Republic of Nauru [2017] HCA 56 where it held that, in certain circumstances, appeals from the Supreme Court to the High Court lie as of right, without the parties first having to seek leave of the Court.

Minogue v Dougherty [2017] VSC 724The Victorian Supreme Court has found that a prisoner’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) were violated when a book of philosophy addressed to him was returned to its sender, while dismissing other human rights claims about receiving and sending mail, and accessing photocopying services. While Justice John Dixon found that the plaintiff’s Charter rights were breached when the mail officer failed to turn her mind to his rights, he did not award damages as the plaintiff’s case had not made out a substantive breach of rights

Re Kelvin [2017] FamCA 78The Full Family Court of Australia has held that Stage 2 hormone treatment for transgender young people does not require the court’s authorisation. Court intervention will remain necessary where there is controversy or disagreement between parents or between treating doctors and parents.Until this case, it is understood that Australia was the only jurisdiction in the world to require transgender young people to seek court authorisation to access treatment. This has drawn criticism from doctors, parents and advocates for unnecessarily increasing mental health risks for transgender young people.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights OC-24/17 of 24 November 2017 – Gender identity, equality and non-discrimination of same-sex couplesThe Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognised the obligation of all member States to ensure same-sex marriages are protected by law and treated equally to heterosexual marriages. The Court also called for member States to put in place an administrative procedure to allow a person to easily change their registered personal information to correspond with their own self-perceived gender identity.

Araya v Nevsun Resources Ltd., 2017 BCCA 401A group of Eritrean refugees are one step closer to trial in a Canadian court case alleging serious human rights abuses against a Canadian mining company, after the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed a strike-out application. The decision is the first time that a Canadian appellate court has allowed a tort claim for breaches of international law peremptory norms – such as the prohibition of slavery – to proceed.

Merriman v Fingal County Council; Friends of the Irish Environment Clg v Fingal County Council [2017] IEHC 695In November 2017, the Irish High Court recognised the existence of a personal constitutional right to an environment that is consistent with the human dignity and well-being of citizens at large.

Bayev and Others v. Russia (application nos. 67667/09, 44092/12 and 56717/12) [2017] ECHR On 20 June 2017, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia's so-called "gay propaganda" laws breached Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The challenge was brought by three Russian nationals who are gay rights activists and were fined for allegedly promoting homosexuality while demonstrating in public places.

Kofoworola Adeolu David v Zara Hosany [2017] EWHC 2787 (QB)In a high-profile decision of the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division), Judge Moloney QC dismissed a libel action brought by Mr David, a Governor of a UK public authority, against another Governor, Ms Hosany. The allegedly defamatory material included allegations of sexual harassment. The Court upheld the principle that complaints, properly made and without malice, are protected from defamation actions (the common law defence of qualified privilege). The exception to the privilege borne from article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and section 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, being a person’s right to respect for “private and family life, home and correspondence”, did not apply as the complaints were made in a private capacity. The judgment provides necessary encouragement to people to report incidences of sexual harassment in the workplace.