Covid-19 vaccine mandates Qld: Court challenge to proceed after successful appeal

Teachers’ and cafe owners’ legal challenges to Covid-19 vaccine mandates, thrown out last year, have been reinstated by a court ruling.

Alexander Law principal Sam Iskander

The lawyer for teachers and cafe owners who had their cases challenging Covid-19 vaccination requirements summarily dismissed is “really happy” that the decision was overturned on appeal.

Two groups of litigants, including hospitality business owners and teachers, wanted the Supreme Court to declare several pandemic-related directions by the chief health officer invalid.

The state government had the cases thrown out last year when it argued, among other things, that the applicants were no longer adversely affected by the directions given they had been revoked.

Those directions included vaccination requirements for workers in high-risk settings and people entering certain businesses or activities.

Not only have those directions been revoked, the legislation underpinning them expired in October 2022.

However the applicants argue the alleged prior infringement of their common law and human rights by unlawful executive action is sufficient to seek court orders declaring the directions invalid.

One group of applicants described themselves as business-owners in the hospitality industry who were prevented from entering, remaining or working in their business due to the CHO direction requiring Covid-19 vaccination or who had to bar unvaccinated staff and customers.

Justice John Bond

The second group of applicants were teachers who did not get vaccinated and as a result were unable to attend work because of the CHO directions.

The two groups, represented by Alexander Law, appealed against the summary dismissal of their cases.

On Tuesday the Court of Appeal found the applicants did have standing to argue their cases.

Justice John Bond said in his decision: “Apart from the rejected proposition as to standing, there is no other good reason to deny the applicants their day in Court in their attempt to establish the merits of their claims for declaratory orders in relation to alleged past contraventions.

“To the contrary, there is a strong public interest in determining whether or not there is any merit in their claims.”

The decision, supported by Justices Soraya Ryan and Sue Brown, did not canvass the merits of those claims.

The applicants were awarded costs.

Alexander Law principal Sam Iskander said the decision should allow the cases to move to trial.

“I’m really happy and this means we can continue on,” he said outside court.