Dunn v Director of Public Health

The applicants, Dunn and others, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Director of Public Health from enforcing a direction issued under public health legislation during an emergency. The primary judge had refused to grant the injunction, and the applicants appealed this decision, arguing that the primary judge had erred in law.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia was whether the primary judge had erred in law in refusing to grant the interlocutory injunction. This required the court to consider whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the validity of the direction issued by the Director of Public Health.

The Full Court found no error in the primary judge's decision. Applying the established principles for granting interlocutory injunctions, the court determined that the applicants had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried that would warrant the grant of such an injunction. The court did not find that the primary judge had misapplied the legal test or made any discernible error in their assessment of the case.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.