Varnhagen v The State of South Australia

The applicants, Varnhagen and others, challenged the validity of certain approvals and directions issued by the State of South Australia in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicants argued that the Emergency Declaration Approvals and the Healthcare Settings Direction exceeded the powers granted under the Emergency Management Act 2004 and were therefore invalid. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Emergency Declaration Approvals and the Healthcare Settings Direction were within the scope of the powers granted to the State Co-ordinator under the Emergency Management Act 2004, and whether they complied with relevant Commonwealth laws, including the requirement for vaccines to be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

The court found that the Emergency Declaration Approvals were within the scope of the powers granted to the State Co-ordinator under the Emergency Management Act 2004. The court held that the State Co-ordinator had the authority to extend the major emergency declaration for the purpose of managing the spread of COVID-19 in South Australia. The court also found that the Healthcare Settings Direction was a lawful exercise of the powers granted to the State Co-ordinator under the Act, as it was reasonably necessary to manage the spread of COVID-19. However, the court held that the Healthcare Settings Direction was invalid to the extent that it required unvaccinated persons to be excluded from healthcare settings, as this was not reasonably necessary to manage the spread of COVID-19 and exceeded the powers granted to the State Co-ordinator under the Act.

The court quashed and declared invalid those parts of the Healthcare Settings Direction that required unvaccinated persons to be excluded from healthcare settings. The court did not make any orders in relation to the Emergency Declaration Approvals, as the applicants did not challenge the initial declaration of major emergency made by the State Co-ordinator on 22 March 2020. The court did not make any orders in relation to the requirement for vaccines to be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, as this was not the subject of the proceedings.