What the Act says
This right is based on Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Scope of the right
This right ensures that all people can own property individually or jointly and protects them from arbitrary deprivation of their property. However, it does not guarantee compensation if property is taken away.
Property can include land, leases, licences, money and things.
To be deprived of property, you must first have to own it or have exclusive use or control of the property. Deprivation will occur if the property has been taken away, destroyed or has been damaged or affected to the extent that you can no longer use or enjoy the property.
Arbitrary deprivation can include deprivation that is unlawful, unreasonable or disproportionate.
Property rights can be limited by public entities, but only where it is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. It would be very difficult to justify a deprivation of property that was found to be arbitrary.
Learn more about justification and other obligations on public entities to respect human rights.
Case examples
Dangerous dog declaration not arbitrary
A dog was declared a ‘dangerous dog’ after it injured another dog in a park. The declaration meant that the owners of the dog had to comply with certain conditions in relation to the dog. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal held that domestic dogs constitute ‘property’ for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 2019. The right to own property protected by section 24(1) was therefore relevant to the decision to designate the dog as dangerous. However, any limitation to that right was reasonable and justified for the purpose of protecting the community. In relation to the rights protected by section 24(2), the Tribunal considered that any deprivation of property was not ‘arbitrary’, as it was fairly and predictably imposed under the relevant legislation.
Elze v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 195 (19 May 2025)
Property rights relevant to decision to suspend taxi licence
A Queensland taxi driver’s authorisation to drive a taxi was suspended on the grounds that he had been charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. He strongly contested the criminal charge and asked that he be allowed to continue driving taxis while the criminal proceedings were resolved.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal noted that that interferences with licences or permits to operate a business or regulated activity such as serving alcoholic drinks, taxi-driving or owning a firearm may engage the licence holder’s property rights. In the member’s view, it was ‘at least arguable’ that protected property rights were relevant to the decision to suspend the authorisation and any subsequent review of that decision.
Hassid v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2024] QCAT 286 (16 July 2024)
Property rights includes restriction on ability to use and enjoy property
The Land Court of Queensland accepted evidence that authorisation of a coal mine would contribute to climate change impacts, which would include the ‘destruction of property or a sufficient restriction on the ability to use and enjoy property to amount to a ‘de facto expropriation’ from extreme weather events. This deprivation of property was arbitrary in the sense of not being proportionate to the legitimate aim of economic benefit and the supply of thermal coal to Southeast Asia.
In assessing compatibility of the limitation of the right to property, the court’s consideration went beyond economic interests and included the human and cultural loss for First Nations peoples.
The Court also held that the rights to property and privacy of landholders as a result of nuisance and environmental damage caused by the mining project would be limited.
In both cases, the limitation was found not to be demonstrably justified.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 (25 November 2022)
Restricting who property can be sold to
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decided that reserving a manufactured home park to persons over 50 years would limit property rights by preventing someone from owning a home in the park if they are under age 50, and restricting homeowners to selling their homes to persons over age 50, which in turn significantly affected market value. The tribunal also held that the right to equality had also been limited.
The tribunal was not persuaded that the limitation of either right was reasonable and demonstrably justified ‘to the objective of providing affordable housing in a community environment for older people’.
Burleigh Town Village Pty Ltd (3) [2022] QCAT 285 (27 July 2022)
This information is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice.