The Civil High Court has dismissed the case brought by businessman John Samisoni against Corporate Management Services PTE Limited, which operates as Hot Bread Kitchen, along with the Minister for Employment, the Minister for Health, and the Office of the Attorney-General. The case was reviewed by High Court Judge Justice Dane Tuiqereqere earlier this month.
Justice Tuiqereqere acknowledged that the case presented significant constitutional questions. He noted that both parties agreed that if the court finds the 2021 Regulations to be lawful, Samisoni’s claims would not hold. In a prior ruling in the case of Fijian Teachers Association v State, Justice Tuiqereqere concluded that the 2021 Regulations were valid. He recognized that the Regulations limited certain constitutional rights, which were also raised by Samisoni, but concluded that they had been properly enacted under Section 62 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1996.
In August 2021, Samisoni lost his job for refusing the COVID-19 vaccination, which led to his termination under Section 52F of the Health and Safety at Work (General Workplace Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. He filed his case claiming that the 2021 Regulations were invalid. The other respondents sought to have the case dismissed.
The core issue in the case is the legality of the 2021 Regulations, which mandated that no employee or employer could enter the workplace without vaccination. The Regulations required workers to receive their first vaccine dose by August 15, 2021, and the second by November 1, 2021. Samisoni complied with the Regulations by not entering the workplace after August 1, 2021, and informed his employer of his decision not to get vaccinated due to concerns he had after conducting his own research. Following this, his employer terminated his employment on August 15, 2021, in alignment with the new regulations.
Justice Tuiqereqere indicated that the other respondents were correct in asserting that constitutional redress under Section 44(1) is only available for violations of provisions found in Chapter 2 of the Constitution. The court also took note that Samisoni did not submit his motion within the required 60-day period from when the issue first arose.
Ultimately, Samisoni’s motion was deemed unsuccessful due to the availability of an alternative remedy through grievances under the Employment Relations Act 2007. He argued that the respondents’ motion to dismiss under the High Court Rules 1988 was flawed.