Johnston and Ors v Commissioner of Police and Anor; Witthahn and Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Director General of Queensland Health and Ors

The applicants, Johnston and others, as well as Witthahn and others, sought judicial review against the respondents, the Commissioner of Police and Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services, respectively. The applicants challenged the Directions issued by the respondents, which mandated that they receive COVID-19 vaccinations. The applicants argued they were "persons aggrieved" under section 7 of the Judicial Review Act, thereby having standing to seek judicial review.

The court had to determine whether the applicants had standing to institute the judicial review matters, whether the subject matter of the applications was an industrial matter, and if so, whether the Industrial Relations Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine questions arising from industrial matters. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the exclusive jurisdiction provisions of the Industrial Relations Act could exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to determine questions of excess of executive power. The court also needed to examine whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the applications under Part 3 of the Judicial Review Act.

The court found that the applicants were "persons aggrieved" and had standing to institute the judicial review matters. It held that the subject matter of the applications was not an industrial matter, as it related to the exercise of executive power in issuing the Directions. Therefore, the Industrial Relations Commission did not have exclusive jurisdiction. The court determined that the exclusive jurisdiction provisions of the Industrial Relations Act could not exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to determine questions of excess of executive power. Finally, the court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the applications under Part 3 of the Judicial Review Act.

The court ordered that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application in each proceeding be struck out.