Hunt v Gerrard; Ishiyama v Aitken

[2025] QCA 126

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Standing to institute proceedings
4. › Declaratory relief
5. › Past infringement of personal rights
6. › Whether standing to seek declarations concerning past breaches of common law and human rights survives revocation of impugned executive action
7. › Whether past infringement of personal rights sufficient without other foreseeable legal consequences
8. › Public Health Act 2005 (Qld), s 362B
9. › Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), ss 58, 59
10. › Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 10
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Summary dismissal
4. › Power to dismiss application for review
5. › Whether summary dismissal appropriate where applicants had standing but directions revoked
6. › Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 48(1)
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from summary dismissal order under Judicial Review Act
4. › Whether correctness standard or House v The King standard applies
5. › Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 48(5)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › COVID-19 public health directions
4. › Vaccination requirements
5. › Whether directions authorised by statute
6. › Whether directions compatible with human rights
7. › Public Health Act 2005 (Qld), s 362B, s 362D
8. › Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 48, s 58, s 59

Quick Take

Past infringement of common law personal rights or human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by executive action is sufficient to confer standing for declaratory relief even after the impugned action has been revoked and the statutory power to make it has expired, without the need to show other foreseeable legal consequences.