Wilson v State of Victoria [2023] FCAFC 204

Wilson v State of Victoria [2023] FCAFC 204

The appellants were granted an extension of time, but leave to appeal from the summary judgment was refused because proposed grounds 1 to 16 had no sufficient prospect of success and refusal of leave would not cause injustice. The primary judge was correct to dismiss the claims summarily because they raised untenable legal propositions, failed to identify a continuing justiciable controversy or practical utility for declaratory relief, and did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success. Leave and the appeal were allowed only as to costs because the appellants had inadvertently been denied procedural fairness on whether any costs liability should be imposed; the 7 March 2023 costs...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Judgment and Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Seek Leave to Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Wilson V State of Victoria [2023] FCA 111
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused except in respect of the challenge to the costs orders; appeal allowed as to the 7 March 2023 costs orders and costs remitted to the original jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'summary Judgment' 'covid 19 Vaccines' 'pandemic Orders' 'costs' 'procedural Fairness' 'justiciable Controversy']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law' 'human Rights' 'public Health'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'summary Judgment' 'covid 19 Vaccines' 'pandemic Orders' 'costs' 'procedural Fairness' 'justiciable Controversy']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Judgment and Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Seek Leave to Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Wilson V State of Victoria [2023] FCA 111

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants should be granted an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the summary judgment dismissing the proceeding under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' "Whether the appellants' proposed grounds concerning COVID-19 vaccine rollout measures, public health directions, pandemic orders, civil conscription, the Australian Immunisation Register, privacy and human rights had sufficient prospects of success." 'Whether the 7 March 2023 costs orders should be set aside because the appellants had not been heard on whether they should be liable for costs at all.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were granted an extension of time, but leave to appeal from the summary judgment was refused because proposed grounds 1 to 16 had no sufficient prospect of success and refusal of leave would not cause injustice. The primary judge was correct to dismiss the claims summarily because they raised untenable legal propositions, failed to identify a continuing justiciable controversy or practical utility for declaratory relief, and did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success. Leave and the appeal were allowed only as to costs because the appellants had inadvertently been denied procedural fairness on whether any costs liability should be imposed; the 7 March 2023 costs...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused except in respect of the challenge to the costs orders; appeal allowed as to the 7 March 2023 costs orders and costs remitted to the original jurisdiction.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed and the orders of 7 March 2023 in proceeding VID 624 of 2021 be set aside.' 'The proceeding be remitted to the original jurisdiction for the determination of costs in the original jurisdiction in VID 624 of 2021, either as provided for by the order of 20 February 2023 in that proceeding or as...