Court Rules Against Businessman’s Challenge to Controversial COVID-19 Regulations

The Civil High Court has dismissed a case filed by businessman John Samisoni against Corporate Management Services PTE Limited, also known as Hot Bread Kitchen, and various government officials, including the Ministers for Employment and Health, as well as the Office of the Attorney-General. This decision was made earlier this month by High Court Judge Justice Dane Tuiqereqere.

Justice Tuiqereqere indicated that the case raised significant constitutional issues. He noted that both parties agreed that if the court finds the 2021 Regulations lawful, Samisoni’s motion would not prevail. He recently addressed the legality of the 2021 Regulations in a different case, determining that they were indeed valid. While acknowledging that the regulations limited two constitutional rights claimed by the Fijian Teachers Association, the judge reiterated that the Minister enacted the 2021 Regulations properly under Section 62 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1996 and stated that these regulations were justified and proportionate.

The background of the case reveals that Samisoni lost his job in August 2021 after refusing the COVID-19 vaccination. His employer terminated his employment following Section 52F of the Health and Safety at Work (General Workplace Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which stipulates mandatory vaccinations for employees to enter the workplace.

Samisoni argued that the 2021 Regulations were ultra vires and invalid, prompting the subsequent legal action. Despite several procedural issues raised, the main question at the heart of the case was the lawfulness of the 2021 Regulations. At the time, Samisoni was Managing Director and a shareholder of the first respondent. The regulations, effective from July 8, 2021, required all workers to be vaccinated to access the workplace, with deadlines for the first and second doses.

After not complying with the vaccination requirements, Samisoni informed his employer of his decision against vaccination. His employer communicated that the regulations necessitated vaccination for workplace entry, leading to his termination effective August 15, 2021.

Justice Tuiqereqere ruled that the respondents correctly pointed out that actions for constitutional redress under Section 44(1) are only applicable for contraventions related to Chapter 2 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court found that Samisoni filed his motion outside the required 60-day period from when the issue arose. The judge concluded that Samisoni’s case could not succeed as he had an adequate alternative remedy available through an employment grievance process under the Employment Relations Act 2007. Conversely, Samisoni contended that the summons to strike out his motion was improperly filed according to the High Court Rules 1988.

Popular Categories

Latest News

Search the website