Radev v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service)

The case of Radev v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) involved a police officer who had been suspended for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate imposed by the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service. The applicant, Mr Radev, had applied for an exemption from the vaccination requirement on medical grounds but was refused. He subsequently applied for a stay of the decision to suspend him without remuneration pending the determination of his appeal under the Public Service Act 2008. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a proper basis for a stay that would be fair to all parties, as required under section 566(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016.

The court considered the principles relevant to an application to stay a decision under appeal, including the onus on the applicant to demonstrate a proper basis for a stay and the tribunal's discretion to weigh considerations such as the balance of convenience and the competing rights of the parties. The court noted that the tribunal would not generally speculate about the applicant's prospects of success but could make a preliminary assessment of whether the applicant has an arguable case. The court also considered the balance of convenience, weighing the inconvenience or injury which the applicant would be likely to suffer if a stay is refused against the injury which the respondent would suffer if a stay was granted.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a proper basis for a stay that would be fair to all parties. The court found that the public interest in ensuring the health and safety of police officers and staff members during a public health emergency outweighed the applicant's right to be exempt from the vaccination requirement. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured refusing the stay, as the respondent would suffer significant injury if the stay was granted, including a risk to the health and safety of police officers and staff members and the ability of the Queensland Police Service to serve the community.

The court dismissed the applicant's application to stay the decision being appealed. The applicant was required to continue to be suspended without remuneration until the determination of his appeal.