Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Australia, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 10 June 2022, ‎[2022] NSWSC 760‎

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Australia
Case ID
‎[2022] NSWSC 760‎
Decision date
10 June 2022
Deciding body (English)
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
  • Civil Court
  • Criminal Court
  • Constitutional Court
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Health law, detention and prison law
Further areas addressed
  • Non-discrimination
  • Education
  • Vaccination
  • Health and freedom of association/public gathering/religion
  • Political/religious discrimination
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au

Case analisys

General Summary

The Applicant was a nursing student and had her clinical placements ‎cancelled in a hospital, and later a vaccination clinic, due to her ‎skepticism about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination. In addition to ‎this action, her conduct was the subject of an internal university ‎disciplinary review. The main rights involved were freedom of ‎speech, freedom of religion and discrimination based on political or ‎religious beliefs. The Applicant sought a declaration that the ‎University’s conduct was in breach of section 35 of the Western ‎Sydney University Act 1997 and sought orders for the University to ‎arrange further clinical placements for her. The Applicant also ‎sought orders restraining the University from any further disciplinary ‎action against her or giving effect to the sanctions already in place. ‎The Court found in the Applicant’s favour and held that the ‎cancellation of the clinical placements was in breach of the Act and ‎was unlawful. ‎

Facts of the case

‎ The Applicant was a nursing student at the university and was ‎required at the completion of her studies to undertake 800 hours of ‎clinical placement. The Applicant’s placement at St George ‎Hospital, commencing 30 August 2020 was cancelled by the Director ‎of Clinical Placements based on the fact she had been sent home, by ‎hospital staff, after expressing concerns about the safety of the ‎COVID-19 vaccination, refusal to be vaccinated, and refusal to ‎undergo COVID testing due to perceived cancer risk. The Applicant ‎was then vaccinated against COVID-19 and was allocated a ‎placement at Macquarie Fields Vaccination Hub on 25 October ‎‎2020. At that placement, the Applicant continued to express views ‎of the safety of the vaccine to another Registered Nurse. The ‎placement was again cancelled on this basis. The University took ‎internal disciplinary action against the student and the outcome was ‎that the Applicant was requested to write a 1500 word “appreciation” ‎on how her conduct was a “breach of her professional obligations’, ‎before any further placements were scheduled. Submissions were ‎made on behalf of the Applicant that the internal action has been ‎pre-decided based on the Applicant’s perceived ‘anti-vax’ stance, ‎and not on the facts at hand. The Applicant sought a declaration that ‎the University was in breach of section 35 of the Western Sydney ‎University Act 1997 which prohibits the University from ‎discriminating against students on the ground of religious or political ‎views or beliefs. ‎

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Declarations that the actions were unlawful and orders restraining ‎further disciplinary action against the Applicant
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court considered the relevant section of the Western Sydney ‎University Act 1997 namely section 35 which provided:‎
No religious or political discrimination
A person must not, because of his or her religious or political ‎affiliations, views or beliefs, be denied admission as a student of the ‎University or progression within the University or be ineligible to ‎hold office in, to graduate from or to enjoy any benefit, advantage or ‎privilege of, the University.‎

The Judge concluded that the refusal to organize clinical placements ‎was a clear denial of “progression within the University” and it also ‎constituted a denial of a “benefit, advantage or privilege” of the ‎University. ‎ The Judge considered freedom of speech and freedom of thought as ‎it related to section 35 and stated at [147]-[149]:‎
It is true that s 35 is not a guarantee of free speech as such. But free ‎speech may be tied up with freedom of thought. Even in ‎circumstances where there is no right of free speech, freedom of ‎conscience will still protect the citizen from being required to make ‎an affirmative profession of belief. Furthermore, a citizen’s speech is ‎usually taken as a guide to that person’s thought. Action against the ‎citizen merely for expressing a thought, when no countervailing ‎interest is engaged, is an indirect attack on the citizen’s freedom to ‎hold it... The theory behind s 35 is that this is an objective process ‎and the personal beliefs, whether religious or political, of those ‎involved, are, or should be, irrelevant.‎

The Judge found that the representatives of the Respondent had ‎taken the view that the Applicant was an anti-vaxxer because of ‎questions asked by her as to the efficacy of the vaccine and that there ‎was a risk she would give false information to patients. Further, the ‎Respondent’s representatives, in their internal investigation, were not ‎‎‘concerned to enquire exactly what Ms Thiab had said to have been ‎labelled as a spreader of “misinformation”’. ‎

It was found that internal action taken against the Applicant was ‘a ‎travesty’. There was no intent to correlate the Applicant’s behaviour ‎with alleged breaches of either the Nursing and Midwifery Board of ‎Australia Code of Conduct, or the International College of Nurses ‎Code of Ethics for Nurses.‎

The Judge found that opposition to vaccination may be based on ‎genuinely held political beliefs; however the “cogency” of such ‎beliefs are irrelevant in this context. The Judge went on to say that ‎public health is a social science requiring a balance between ‎people’s individual freedoms and a government taking action to ‎restrict the spread of a disease in the collective interest. The Judge ‎concluded that this is a politically controversial situation in any ‎person’s view. In questioning the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, ‎the Applicant was effectively criticizing government policy and this ‎statement is political in nature. The University in cancelling the ‎Applicant’s placements were taken because of beliefs that were ‎political in nature and were contrary to section 35 and the decision ‎was therefore unlawful.‎

The Judge found that the Respondent’s University’s actions in ‎cancelling the Applicant’s clinical placements on 25 October 2021, ‎after she had been vaccinated and in later imposing sanction 4, ‎which prevented any further placements being allocated, ‎contravened s 35.‎

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that the University in cancelling the ‎Applicant’s placements had breached section 35 of the Western ‎Sydney University Act 1997. ‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom of expression
  • Freedom of information
  • Political rights
  • Right to bodily integrity
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. freedom of expression / right to information
General principle applied
  • Non-discrimination
  • Due process
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court undertook a brief historical analysis of the genesis of the ‎section in question and discussed the progression of the legislation as ‎it related to freedom of religion, freedom of thought and freedom of ‎expression. The Court ultimately concluded that the University, in ‎taking an action on the basis of the Applicant’s beliefs on ‎vaccination was an attack on her right to hold that belief. Given that ‎the belief was political in nature as it disagreed with government ‎policy on vaccination then by cancelling the Applicant’s placements, ‎the University prevented the Applicant from progressing within the ‎University and breached section 35.‎

Authors of the case note
  • Solicitor‎ Kirsty Mackie, Research Assistant‎, Australian Centre for Health Law Research‎
  • Dr. Katie Woolaston, Chief Investigator, Australian Centre for Health Law Research‎
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 30 September 2022

More cases from Australia

  • Australia, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, 21 December 2022, Wolfraad v Serco Australia Pty Limited [2022] FedCFamC2G 106
    Area: Non-discrimination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Political rights; Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Australia, Fair Work Commission, Tasmania, 27 January 2023, Sommerville v University of Tasmania FWCFB 19
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal, Supreme Court, New South Wales, 7 October 2022, SF v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 216 - BarNet Jade - BarNet Jade
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Prisoners’ rights; Right to an effective remedy; Right to private and family life
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Australia, State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia, 21 September 2022, Board of Australia and Narin [2022] WASAT 86
    Area: Sanctions and remedies
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Australia, Supreme Court of Western Australia, 23 August 2022, Falconer v. Chief Health Officer [No 3] [2022] WASC 270
    Area: Health law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Australia, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, 5 July 2022, ‎[2022] FedCFamC2G 543‎
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Australia

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Australia, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 10 June 2022, ‎[2022] NSWSC 760‎
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies