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

New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 8 April 2022, NZDSOS Inc v Min. for Covid-19 Response, CIV-2021-485-595

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
New Zealand
Case ID
NZDSOS Inc v Min. for Covid-19 Response, CIV-2021-485-595
Decision date
8 April 2022
Deciding body (English)
High Court of New Zealand
Deciding body (Original)
High Court of New Zealand
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
The High Court is New Zealand’s only court of general jurisdiction
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Federal Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Vaccination
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.nzlii.org

Case analisys

General Summary

The main right argued in this matter was the right to be free to refuse medical treatment, in this case a COVID-19 vaccination. Furthermore, the Applicants claimed that the vaccination order was invalid as it was not a reasonable and demonstrable limit of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The remedy sought was a declaration that the order was invalid.

The Applicants were unsuccessful.

Facts of the case

This Application was concerning COVID-19 vaccine mandates for workers in the health and disability sector and education system. There were two claims contained in the Application. The first claim was that the requirement to be vaccinated pursuant to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 was not within the empowering provisions of the Act. This claim was dismissed by judgment delivered on 12 November 2021.

This judgment represents the second claim being that the vaccination Order was invalid as it was not a reasonable and demonstrable limit of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It was also argued that the criteria for obtaining an exemption to the vaccination requirements were unreasonable or irrational, or applied in such an overly rigid or arbitrary way that the Order should be set aside.

The Court determined that the exemption criteria were reasonable and not applied in an overly rigid manner.

At the time of trial, the mandates were still in force. However, between trial and the delivery of judgment, the New Zealand government revoked the mandate for those working in the education sector. The Court determined that the vaccine mandate for teachers and those in the education system were justified at the time of trial. The school environment in itself was a potential transmission risk in the compulsory nature of school requiring children to congregate in large groups.

In relation to the health and disability worker mandate, the Court concluded that the Orders remained a demonstrably justified limit on the rights in the Bill of Rights at the time of trial and that the Order was not unlawful. It pointed to the vulnerability of patients and the limitation on a patient’s ability to make informed choices and the need to keep public confidence in the health system.

The Court went on to state that the right to be free to refuse medical treatment is a significant right but that it was not an absolute right. The right is subject to reasonable limits as prescribed by law “that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s 5 of the Bill of Rights”. The Court concluded that such a view is consistent with international authority and consistent with the approach taken in New Zealand in separating the right to refuse medical treatment from other more absolute rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights.

Type of measure challenged
  • National government measure
  • Federal government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Declaration that the vaccination Order was invalid.
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a specific group of claimants in their own interest for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court commenced by considering if the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment contained in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was an absolute right. The Court concluded with reference to international case law including the European Court of Human Rights, that it was not an absolute right and could be subject to demonstrably justifiable limits.

The Court found it significant that New Zealand had “charted its own course” in separating the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment a separate right. It was noted that in other human rights instruments that this right was “subsumed” within other more generally expressed rights such as the right not to be deprived of life or the right not to be subject to torture or cruel treatment. The Court considered that this separation from other rights, particularly the right to be free from medical or scientific experimentation was significant. The Court referred to the White Paper which was published in 1984 when the Bill of Rights was being considered which stated that section 11 had no equivalent in any other international covenant nor in any other international human rights instrument. It went on to state that the rationale behind separating this particular right would permit “persons to be treated against their will only where this is necessary to protect the health and safety of other persons, and not simply where their refusal of treatment will detrimentally affect their own health…”.

The Court accepted the Crown’s argument that the affected workers are not being compelled to receive a medical treatment. They are not being physically restrained in order to be vaccinated. Whilst they are under considerable pressure to accept the vaccination or risk losing their employment, they retain the right to decline. The right contained in section 11 is being limited however that limit is justified in a manner that the authors of the White Paper anticipated.

In order to address whether the limits that the Order imposes are justified, the Court had regard at para [67] to the steps in R v Hansen [2007] 3 NZLR 1 at [108] – [111] which asked:

a) does the limiting measure serve a purpose sufficiently important to justify the limitation of the right or freedom?

b) Do the means chosen to achieve that objective pass a proportionality test, namely:

(i) Is the limiting measure rationally connected with its purpose?

(ii) Does the limiting measure impair the right or freedom no more than is reasonably necessary or sufficient achievement of that purpose?

(iii) Is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective?

The Court concluded that the vaccine mandates imposed a justifiable limit on the right contained in section 11 and that they met the standards as set out in R v Hansen. The Court did acknowledge that the justification argument in the health and disability sector was more powerful than in the education sector. 

Conclusions of the deciding body

Claim was dismissed.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Right to bodily integrity
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Right to refuse medical treatment, Section 11, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. Right to refuse medical treatment
General principle applied
  • Proportionality
  • Precautionary
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

While addressing whether the limits under section 5 are justified limitations, the Court relied on R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103. One of the questions addressed in R v Oakes is whether the limit is in due proportion to the importance of the objective? The Court, however, noted that this test should not be applied rigidly. While considering whether a measure is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, the Court may warrant a line of analysis that is not particularly emphasized by the proportionality to the objective test. Careful scrutiny of the justification for the measure in question is required. In the present case, the Crown advanced two key justifications for the mandate in the health and disability sector. First, the vaccination assists in limiting the risk of transmission; second, the full vaccination limits the risk of absenteeism in the workforce. The Court gave more importance to the first justification. The purpose of the mandate was to inhibit the spread of COVID-19, to ensure the availability of critical health services, and to sustain the public confidence in those services. A zero tolerance approach could be justified. The Court accepted that the rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable limits, prescribed by law. The Court, however, elaborated that the Crown retained the burden of showing that any limits on a fundamental right were demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 5 of the Bill of Rights. The Court referred to Spencer v Attorney-General of Canada [2021] FC 361 to describe the precautionary principle. According to Pentney J, “The precautionary principle is a foundational approach to decision-making under uncertainty, that points to the importance of acting on the best available information to protect the health of Canadians”. The Court maintained that the precautionary principle applied to the present case as there was uncertainty, but application of this principle did not remove or reduce the burden that was placed on the Crown to demonstrate that any limits on a fundamental right were justified. The Court accepted that vaccination has apparent benefits in reducing transmission and the Crown rightly saw vaccination as providing significant protection against community transmission. The Court accepted that the measures in the Orders remained a demonstrably justified limit on the rights in the Bill of Rights.

Authors of the case note
  • Kirsty Mackie , Solicitor; Research Assistant , Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology
  • Muhammad Zaheer Abbas, Chief Investigator , Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology
Case identified by
Kirsty Mackie
Published by Chiara Patera on 8 August 2022

More cases from New Zealand

  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 8 June 2022, [2022] NZHC 1333
    Area: Immigration and asylum
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to marry; Right to privacy; Right to private and family life
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 16 August 2022, [2022] NZHC 2026
    Area: Health and freedom of association/public gathering/religion
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly; Freedom of expression; Freedom of religion
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • New Zealand, New Zealand High Court, 8 November 2021, ‎[2021] NZHC 3012
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Other (Right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand , 27 April 2022, Grounded Kiwis Group In. v Min. of Health, CIV-2021-485-556
    Area: Freedom of movement of people
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim partially upheld
  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 22 November 2021, NZHC 3154‎
    Area: Immigration and asylum
    Fundamentals rights involved: Other (Right to natural justice)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 28 October 2021, NZHC 2897‎
    Area: Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Other (Freedom to re-enter the country of residence without unreasonable ‎limitation)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from New Zealand

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 8 April 2022, NZDSOS Inc v Min. for Covid-19 Response, CIV-2021-485-595
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