Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Davis v Minister for Health [2021] NSWCATAD 310 Hearing dates: 11 October 2021 Date of orders: 25 October 2021 Decision date: 25 October 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: L Pearson, Principal Member Decision: The order of the Tribunal is:
(1) Pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the application made by Danielle Davis on 23 September 2021 is dismissed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for administrative review – jurisdiction of Tribunal – summary dismissal
Legislation Cited: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997(NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013(NSW)
Health Services Act 1997 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW)
Public Health (COVID-19 Aged Care Facilities) Order 2021 (NSW)
Public Health (COVID-19 Vaccination of Education and Care Workers) Order 2021 (NSW)
Public Health (COVID-19 Vaccination of Health Care Workers) Order 2021 (NSW)
Public Health Act 1991 (NSW)
Public Health Act 2010(NSW)
Cases Cited: Athavle v State of New South Wales [2021] FCA 1075
Davis v Minister for Health [2021] NSWCATAD 293
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Kermode (2011) 81 NSWLR 157; [2011] NSWCA 174
Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320
RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority (2001) 113 FCR 185; [2001] FCA 855
Texts Cited: Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 24 November 2010, p 28128
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Danielle Davis (Applicant)
Minister for Health (First Respondent)
Northern NSW Local Health District (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Z Heger (First Respondent)
Z Heger (Second Respondent)
Solicitors:
E Turner (Agent for Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (First Respondent)
Crown Solicitor (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00271978 Publication restriction: None
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
Ms Danielle Davis is an endorsed enrolled nurse employed at Ballina Hospital Rehabilitation ward. On 23 September 2021 she applied to the Tribunal for administrative review, identifying as the decision to be reviewed a letter dated 14 September 2021 from the Director of Workforce, Northern NSW Local Health District (the NNSWLHD). That letter informed Ms Davis that pursuant to the Public Health (COVID-19 Vaccination of Health Care Workers) Order 2021 (NSW) (the PHO) made under s 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) (the PH Act), COVID-19 vaccinations would be required for all NSW Health staff in order to continue to work for NSW Health, with the first vaccination required by 30 September 2021 and the second by 30 November 2021. The letter stated:
“If you do not have an approved medical contraindication certificate and have not provided evidence of having had one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine to the Northern NSW Local Health District…by 30 September 2021, you cannot continue to work for NSW Health. Other than as outlined above, there are no exceptions to these requirements as there are penalties for both employers and workers for non-compliance.”
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Davis v Minister for Health and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWCATAD 310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's refusal to approve the medical procedure constituted a "decision" that could be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The court had to consider the scope and meaning of the term "decision" and whether it encompassed the Minister's refusal to approve the procedure. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application and if the application was eligible for summary dismissal.
The court found that the Minister's refusal to approve the medical procedure constituted a "decision" as it had a direct and significant impact on Davis's legal rights and expectations. The court emphasised that the term "decision" should be interpreted broadly to include any administrative action that affects an individual's rights. The court concluded that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the Minister's decision and that the application was not eligible for summary dismissal. The Minister's refusal was deemed to be a decision that could be subject to judicial review. The court ordered that the application proceed to a full hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
includes any of the following:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.