Witthahn v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Director General of Queensland Health; Johnstone v Commissioner of Police

In the appeal from Witthahn v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Director General of Queensland Health, the appellants, employees of the Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Ambulance Service, and the Queensland Health Service, challenged the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination orders issued by the respondents, which required them to receive at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by a specified date, and a second dose by a second specified date, and provide evidence of such vaccinations if requested. The appellants sought judicial review under sections 20 and 43 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) of the directions issued by the Commissioner of Police, the Chief Executive of the Hospital and Health Services, and the Acting Commissioner of the Queensland Ambulance Service. The respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland to determine these disputes. The primary judge struck out parts of the appellants' applications, finding that the Industrial Relations Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The appeal is concerned with the scope of the jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Act.

The legal issues before the court were whether the present claim under the Judicial Review Act fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission and whether some of the court's supervisory jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Act had been conferred upon the Commission. The court examined the historical context of the Judicial Review Act, which was modelled on the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), and noted that the Queensland Act is substantially identical to the Commonwealth Act, with some differences reflecting differences between the State and Commonwealth legislative contexts. The court found that the primary judge was incorrect in finding that the Industrial Relations Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and that the appeal should be allowed.

The court held that the Judicial Review Act provides a broad and inclusive definition of a "decision to which this Act applies," which includes decisions made under an enactment, and that the Act was intended to establish a single and simple form of proceeding for judicial review of administrative decision making. The court found that the requirement for a decision maker to give reasons for a decision was the lynchpin of the statute, and that the right to have reasons was a dramatic advance in arming the individual with effective remedies in the overall scheme to ensure administrative justice.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeals and to set aside the orders made on 26 October 2021.