Peers v Eastern Health & Anor

The case of *Peers v Eastern Health & Anor* involved Dr Beverly Peers, who initiated proceedings in the High Court of Australia against Eastern Health and the State of Victoria. Dr Peers alleged that her employment as a VMO Anaesthetist was terminated in December 2022 due to her failure to disclose vaccination status or medical history, purportedly based on pandemic workplace orders made under the *Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008* (Vic). She sought declaratory relief that the Victorian Act was inoperative due to inconsistency with the Commonwealth's *Fair Work Act 2009* under section 109 of the Constitution, and that her employment relationship was governed by the *Fair Work Act*.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the proceedings, which had significant procedural defects, should be remitted to the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Dr Peers, argued vehemently against remittal, contending that the High Court alone possessed the jurisdiction to conclusively determine the constitutional questions and provide the sought-after remedy, asserting that the Federal Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction and the capacity to invalidate State Acts. The defendants, Eastern Health and the State of Victoria, supported the remittal of the proceedings to the Federal Court.

The High Court considered the plaintiff's submissions regarding the discretionary power to remit under section 44 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth), including arguments that such power could not be exercised arbitrarily and required intelligible justification. The Court noted that the proceedings, as filed, contained significant procedural defects and did not constitute proper pleadings. Despite the plaintiff's arguments, the Court found that the Federal Court possessed concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, as the case involved matters arising under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, specifically the *Fair Work Act*. The Court rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the Federal Court could not grant appropriate relief, stating that its decisions would be binding, subject to appeal.

The Court ordered that the proceedings be remitted to the Federal Court of Australia. This decision was based on the finding that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter and provide all appropriate relief, notwithstanding the plaintiff's opposition and her arguments concerning the High Court's original jurisdiction and the perceived limitations of the Federal Court. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's arguments regarding the Federal Court's inability to grant relief were unfounded and that the existence of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction did not preclude remittal to a court with concurrent jurisdiction.