27 Apr 2023
The High Court found the District Court judge properly accepted Police evidence that the appellant intentionally attended a prohibited gathering in an Alert Level 3 area in breach of s26 of the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, causing no miscarriage of justice; however, on sentencing the community work term was excessive in the circumstances and was lawfully substituted by a $100 fine.
17 Aug 2022
The Order's CVC and gathering limits did limit s15 rights but were lawful: they were prescribed by law, pursued a sufficiently important public health objective, were rationally connected to that objective and, given the evidence and precautionary public health context, were no more impairing than reasonably necessary and proportionate both at introduction and after Omicron's arrival; challenges based on alleged failure to consider s15, arbitrariness, or delayed removal of CVCs failed.
18 Mar 2021
There was a substantial dispute as to liability because it was arguable that cl 27.5 was triggered by the COVID-19 emergency together with the Inland Revenue's directions reducing staff attendance, which materially prevented customers and staff accessing the premises and therefore entitled the tenant to a fair proportionate abatement of rent; as a result the statutory demand was set aside because the debt claimed was not clearly due and payable and the court could not determine the fair proportion on this application.
4 May 2020
The Court held the COVID-19 Alert Level 3 restrictions did not constitute detention under the Habeas Corpus Act because they did not place appellants in close custody; alternatively, even if detention existed, habeas corpus was not the appropriate remedy to challenge the lawfulness of s70 Health Act notices and an expedited judicial review is the suitable process; name suppression was refused for lack of evidence of real risk of physical harm.