Anti-vaccine mandate campaign ordered to pay for their own legal bills in Supreme Court challenge
A failed anti-mandate challenge tried to get taxpayers to foot the bill for their celebrity barrister and legal paperwork. See why this was dismissed.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
ANTI-VACCINE mandate challengers have been ordered to cover their own legal costs, picking up the tab for their celebrity barrister and thousands of pages of affidavits, documents and expert reports.
Five Territorians who challenged the vaccine mandate attempted to get taxpayers to foot the bill for their failed nine-month Supreme Court challenge.
Justice Sonia Brownhill dismissed all appeals for the anti-vaccine campaigners legal costs to be covered, calling some of their arguments “misconceived”.
“There is no basis on which to make such an award,” she said.
The decision brought to an end the nine-month long legal challenge, which began in December when Buslink driver Ray Phillips, Coles worker Conan Thomas Hammett and Power and Water Corporation employee John Anstess argued they lost work shifts due to the mandate.
The trio were later joined by an essential oils saleswoman and Cullen Bay Day Spa owner Marii Oblelscuk, and hospital admin worker Cobie Campbell.
It is unknown how much their legal bills totalled but their case involved multiple hearings and recruited a legal juggernaut for their case, Queen’s Counsel Julian Burnside.
United NT Businesses website claimed it raised $16,050 in donations to “fight against vaccine mandates” — well short of the $100,000 goal.
The UNTB, which is not registered under the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission, also holds fundraisers and sponsorship drives to fund challenges to the NT’s Covid rules.
In April, the anti-mandate group failed to cap the government’s legal spending at $50,000.
The five plaintiffs withdrew their case on May 30 and made an application for costs, in the wake of Public and Environmental Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2022.
The May bill amended the chief health officer's powers and obligations and critically retrospectively validated the mandate powers.
The changes were passed only 25 days before the Supreme Court trial was set to begin.
In their application for costs the plaintiffs argued that the government had acted unreasonably, and that the retrospective changes were unfair and unjust.
But Justice Brownhill ordered that each party “bears their own costs”.
Justice Brownhill said cost applications were rare when “futile” cases were withdrawn.
“The court cannot try a hypothetical action between the parties,” she said
She said in very rare cases costs could be ordered when the challenge was “almost certain to have succeeded”.
Justice Brownhill said while she had found anti-mandate challenge was not “frivolous or vexatious”, it was a “large leap” to say they would have won.
“The proceedings can reasonably be described as a very broad, extremely complex and, in some respects, novel administrative law challenge,” she said.
Lawyer Danial Kelly said the retrospective changes meant that the government knew they would lose the Supreme Court case.
Mr Kelly said his clients were also “perversely encouraged” to continue their challenge, when the government knew their amendments would render it futile.
But Justice Brownhill said neither of these allegations could be proven.
Barkly grog fiend knocks partner out then kicks her flush in the face
A Tennant Creek man who assaulted his partner twice, the second time knocking her out cold on a public street then sinking his foot into her face, has avoided jail after counsellors found he was mending his ways.
Internal documents reveal mining minister was ordered to reject Jabiluka bid
Confidential documents show the Commonwealth did not believe Rio Tinto would back a fight against Territory Traditional Owners who are pushing to expand Kakadu National Park.