The Queensland Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of seven teachers and twelve small business owners contesting the legality of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed by the Queensland government. This decision allows them to appeal against previous rulings that dismissed their claims.
The teachers, including Cherie Jean Ishiyama, were dismissed in 2022 for refusing the vaccine, which was mandated for frontline workers such as educators. Several other educators also opted against vaccination due to concerns about job security. Meanwhile, the affected small business owners faced operational challenges; some unvaccinated owners were barred from accessing their own establishments, and those who complied with vaccination requirements still had to enforce restrictions on unvaccinated patrons, significantly affecting their business revenue.
In 2022, this group filed a legal challenge against the mandate, asserting it was unlawful and detrimental to their rights. The mandate enforced stringent measures across various sectors, including education and hospitality, requiring proof of vaccination for entry into many business venues. However, it was eventually revoked later that year.
In early 2023, the Supreme Court had dismissed their case, establishing that the group’s claims became irrelevant following the mandate’s rescindment. Additionally, they were ordered to cover the government’s legal costs.
Undeterred, the appellants sought “declaratory relief,” aiming for a court determination of their legal rights concerning the prior mandate. The state argued that since the mandate was no longer in effect, there was no ongoing risk of prosecution or consequences for the appellants. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal unanimously found merit in the appeal, allowing the case to advance in court. Justice John Bond emphasised the public interest in exploring the claims related to the mandate and stated there was no valid reason to prevent the group from pursuing their lawsuit.
With this decision, the teachers and business owners can resume their legal battle against the state government. Notably, this ruling follows a significant 2024 Supreme Court decision ruling that mandated vaccination for police and ambulance workers was unlawful, potentially setting a precedent for the current case. The state government has also been instructed to pay the appellants’ legal costs related to the appeal, reaffirming the court’s support for their right to a fair hearing on the matter.