Victorian Court Mandate Hearing

[Black Orchid]

A Victorian judge has ruled against interim relief for a group challenging Victoria's COVID-19 vaccination mandate for essential workers and suggested they refine their case.

There are 132 workers and employers challenging the requirements, arguing the state's vaccine directions breach their human rights.

Melbourne couple Belinda and Jack Cetnar filed a case challenging the mandates last month, but after a judge recommended they get legal advice they've joined a larger action led by healthcare worker Simon Harding.

On Friday Justice Melinda Richards ruled against a temporary bar on the directive, but said the matter could go to trial before Christmas.

"I am acutely aware that the effect of the directions that are currently in place is that many may not attend work while they choose not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and that this is likely to harm their livelihoods and their ongoing employment," she said.

But she warned that an expedited trial may not happen if the case continues in the current form.

She said there were 132 plaintiffs involved in the challenge, each arguing that at least 15 vaccination directives breach 17 different rights protected by Victoria's Charter of Human Rights.

"As the case is presently constituted, with all of the parties and all of the issues and with what is foreshadowed by way of expert evidence, I just don't think it's achievable to have a trial before the end of the year," she said.

Marcus Clarke QC is representing healthcare workers, construction workers, people in education, other declared authorised workers and employers who want the mandate to be quashed and for the court to declare them invalid.

Justice Richards suggested the case could be reconfigured, including limiting the participants to one person from each of the groups currently represented.

She also suggested they refine their case to focus on the grounds with the best prospects of success and said questions for experts needed to be amended, pointing out that many of the current proposed questions had no obvious connection to what was being argued.

Mr Clarke's clients claim health officials failed to give proper consideration to human rights and the declaration is incompatible with the charter.

Documents filed in the court allege health officials acted under direction and "at the behest of the Premier of Victoria and failed to give any independent consideration as to whether it was appropriate".

The case also alleges the health officers acted "illogically or irrationally" in concluding that the vaccine mandate directions were necessary to protect public health.

Lawyers will return to court next Friday when Justice Richards hopes to set a trial date.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... np1taskbar