Tey v State of NSW

The applicant, Tey, commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking to impugn the validity of certain COVID-19 Public Health Orders. Simultaneously, Tey faced a prosecution in the Local Court related to the same orders. The Local Court magistrate refused Tey's application to vacate the hearing date. Both the defence in the Local Court and the proceedings in the Supreme Court raised constitutional issues. Tey sought an order staying the Local Court proceedings, arguing for a balance of convenience in light of the constitutional questions involved.

The central legal issue was whether the court should grant a stay or injunctive relief to halt the Local Court proceedings. Tey argued that the constitutional questions raised in both sets of proceedings warranted a stay to prevent potential conflicts and to allow for a comprehensive resolution of the constitutional issues in the Supreme Court. The court had to consider the balance of convenience, weighing the interests of Tey against the public interest in enforcing public health orders and the administration of justice.

The court, in considering the application, focused on the balance of convenience. It determined that the constitutional questions raised were indeed significant and warranted careful consideration. However, the court concluded that the public interest in enforcing public health orders and the administration of justice outweighed Tey's request for a stay. The court found that allowing the Local Court proceedings to continue did not unduly prejudice Tey's rights and that the constitutional issues could be adequately addressed in the Supreme Court proceedings. Therefore, the application for a stay was dismissed.

The court did not grant the stay sought by Tey, allowing the Local Court proceedings to proceed. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured the enforcement of public health orders and the administration of justice, and that Tey's constitutional challenges could be sufficiently addressed in the Supreme Court.