Dunn v Director of Public Health

[2021] TASFC 16

Tasmania Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Equitable remedies
3. › Injunctions
4. › Interlocutory injunctions
5. › Serious question to be tried
6. › Whether direction under public health legislation during emergency was within power
7. › Public Health Act 1997 (Tas), s 16
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from discretionary decision
3. › Interlocutory injunction
4. › Whether primary judge erred in law
5. › House v The King principles
6. › No error shown
1. Public Health
2. › Emergency powers
3. › Direction of Director of Public Health
4. › Mandatory vaccination of certain workers
5. › Scope of power under s 16
6. › Whether principle of legality limits construction
7. › Public Health Act 1997 (Tas), ss 14, 16

Quick Take

Section 16 of the Public Health Act 1997 (Tas) confers wide powers on the Director of Public Health during a declared public health emergency, including the power to issue mandatory vaccination directions for specified workers. The principle of legality does not constrain the construction of s 16 where the text is unambiguous. Arguments that mandatory vaccination directions exceed the scope of s 16 are unlikely to raise a serious question to be tried for interlocutory relief purposes.

Case Details

Citation[2021] TASFC 16

CourtTASFC

JurisdictionTasmania

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on2

2021Dunn v VeitchTASSC 56
2021Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v HazzardNSWSC 1320
House v RHCA 40
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'NeillHCA 46

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in