Friis v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)
Case
•
[2022] QIRC 360
•15 September 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Friis v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 360
[2022] QIRC 360
15 September 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Friis, an advanced care paramedic employed by the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS), was required to receive two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by 27 February 2022, unless he had a valid exemption. QAS issued a direction on 13 September 2021, followed by a further direction on 31 January 2022, enforcing the vaccination mandate. Friis applied for an exemption but was unsuccessful. He appealed against the rejection of his exemption application and the subsequent direction to receive a COVID-19 vaccine within seven days and to provide confirmation of vaccination. The court was required to determine whether the decision imposed on Friis was fair and reasonable.
The court examined the relevant legislative framework, including Section 194 of the Public Service Act and Section 41 of the Ambulance Service Act, which provides for the issuing of codes of practice. The QAS HR Policy outlined mandatory vaccination requirements for all current and prospective employees. Friis’ exemption application was based on "another exceptional circumstance," which the decision maker considered. The decision maker reviewed Friis' concerns regarding vaccine efficacy, the low death rate from COVID-19, the potential risk from medication, and the issue of informed consent. The decision maker also considered the effects of the decision on Friis' human rights.
The court confirmed that the decision maker provided adequate reasons for rejecting Friis' exemption application and directing him to be vaccinated. The decision was deemed fair and reasonable given the legislative framework and policy requirements. The decision maker considered Friis' concerns and found them insufficient to grant an exemption. The court found no grounds for overturning the decision, thus confirming the direction imposed on Friis.
The court confirmed the decision appealed against, meaning Friis must comply with the vaccination requirement as directed by QAS. The court found no error in the decision-making process or the consideration of Friis' exemption application.
The court examined the relevant legislative framework, including Section 194 of the Public Service Act and Section 41 of the Ambulance Service Act, which provides for the issuing of codes of practice. The QAS HR Policy outlined mandatory vaccination requirements for all current and prospective employees. Friis’ exemption application was based on "another exceptional circumstance," which the decision maker considered. The decision maker reviewed Friis' concerns regarding vaccine efficacy, the low death rate from COVID-19, the potential risk from medication, and the issue of informed consent. The decision maker also considered the effects of the decision on Friis' human rights.
The court confirmed that the decision maker provided adequate reasons for rejecting Friis' exemption application and directing him to be vaccinated. The decision was deemed fair and reasonable given the legislative framework and policy requirements. The decision maker considered Friis' concerns and found them insufficient to grant an exemption. The court found no grounds for overturning the decision, thus confirming the direction imposed on Friis.
The court confirmed the decision appealed against, meaning Friis must comply with the vaccination requirement as directed by QAS. The court found no error in the decision-making process or the consideration of Friis' exemption application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Public Service Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Legitimate Expectation
-
Public Service Employee
-
Mandatory Vaccination
-
Exemption Application
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Davenport v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2024] QIRC 206
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Allison v State of Queensland (Department of Education)
[2024] QIRC 263
Daunt v State of Queensland (Department of Education)
[2024] QIRC 251
Rowe v State of Queensland (Department of Education)
[2024] QIRC 248
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
[1995] HCA 10
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
[1995] HCA 10
Love v Attorney-General (NSW)
[1990] HCA 4