Justice Callaghan ruled in favor of the teenager’s legal team, effectively overturning the minister’s decision to ban gender-affirming treatments for minors.

The court emphasized that proper consultation must involve meaningful opportunities for relevant health services to contribute, which was not met in this case.

Critics, including Greens MP Michael Berkman, pointed out that the short consultation period and the timing of the announcement suggested political interference and a predetermined decision.

The court also noted that officials involved were unaware of the directive until a meeting where the decision had already been made, invalidating the consultation process.

This legal challenge was prompted by a case involving a 12-year-old girl prescribed puberty blockers in May 2024, highlighting the real-world implications of the policy.

Following the ruling, Minister Tim Nicholls indicated he would consider issuing a new directive but acknowledged the procedural flaws identified by the court.

Queensland Health’s lawyers defended the process, asserting that the decision involved appropriate political and executive participation and was within legal bounds.

The court found that the health directive issued by Queensland's director-general, Dr. David Rosengren, did not meet legal consultation requirements, with evidence showing only a brief 22-minute meeting via Microsoft Teams on the day the directive was announced.

This consultation was criticized as superficial, with minimal changes made to the document and no real impact on the decision, raising questions about its legitimacy.

The Queensland Supreme Court has ruled that the ban on puberty blockers for transgender youth was unlawful due to procedural irregularities and inadequate consultation.

The court adjourned to consider whether the decision was influenced by political pressures, and ultimately ruled that the process was flawed and the ban was unlawful.

Legal representatives argued that Rosengren signed off on the directive shortly before its publication, implying the decision was pre-ordained and not properly consultative.