Palmer v Western AustraliaCitation:[2021] HCA 5Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:24 Feb 2021Case Number:B26/2020Read more

Palmer v Western AustraliaCitation:[2021] HCA 5Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:24 Feb 2021Case Number:B26/2020Read more

The court held that the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) and the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions did not impermissibly infringe section 92 of the Constitution because the restrictions were a reasonable and proportionate response to the COVID-19 pandemic and were not protectionist in character.

Parties
Respondent: Minister for Emergency Services; Applicant: Applicant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Interstate Trade, COVID 19 Emergency Powers, Section 92 of the Constitution, Quarantine and Border Closures
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Freedom of Interstate Trade COVID 19 Emergency Powers Section 92 of the Constitution Quarantine and Border Closures

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Emergency Services

Respondent

Applicant

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) or the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions impermissibly infringed the constitutional limitation in section 92 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the provisions of the Emergency Management Act imposed an impermissible burden on interstate trade, commerce or intercourse
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of power to make the Directions raised a constitutional question

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) and the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions did not impermissibly infringe section 92 of the Constitution because the restrictions were a reasonable and proportionate response to the COVID-19 pandemic and were not protectionist in character.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.