Jab Injury Class Action Case
Re: the Legality of the Australian Government’s Mandated Covid-19 Injections
Facts of the Case
*updated July 7, 2023
Queensland GP, Dr Melissa McCann has brought this case to the courts on behalf of her patients, many of whom received life altering injuries after taking Covid-19 vaccines and received inadequate recognition of their condition, little treatment and no or little compensation. Her efforts to get justice for victims has resulted in a national class action lawsuit with 500+ participants. (1)
During the roll-out of Covid vaccines in 2021, Dr McCann, who has worked with patients suffering from vaccine injuries for more than ten years, observed an unusual pattern of injuries she had not observed previously with other vaccines:
“It’s certainly not the norm that people would be coming in after a couple of days one after another with exertional chest pain, miscarriages, blood clots …” (2)
The class action was filed by NR Barbi Solicitor Pty Ltd (3) on 26th April 2023 (4)
The action is being brought against: the Australian Federal Government , the Department of Health and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (the TGA) as well as senior bureaucrats in government. (1)
[it] is seeking to redress grievances by citizens who listened to their government when they were told to get vaccinated, suffered harm from the vaccine, and were then promptly abandoned by the very people who forced them to jab in the first place. (5)
McCann: (1, 2)
“There are three representative members of the class:
a man is 40s called Gareth who has acute myopericarditis and as a result of that has had to undergo open heart surgery which has had enormous impacts on his ability to enjoy life, his family and work.
Anthony, who suffered a type of significant and debilitating chronic fatigue syndrome, a neurological syndrome that has been incapacitating and I think very difficult to live with because there is no treatment for it, we’re dealing with such uncharted waters and yet completely and utterly life-changing for this man.
Antonio is a man who experienced spinal cord lesions, or inflammation of the spinal chord, myelitis essentially, and was unable to walk, was bed bound for some months and remains unable to walk unassisted.”
“Doctors against mandates” initially was a lawsuit by 13 Queensland medical doctors against the Queensland government’s vaccine mandate direction, filed in March 2022. The doctors were forced to change their strategy in September 2022 because their case was ‘taken away’ due to the change of the governmental vaccine direction which they were seeking the judicial review for. Two doctors from the original doctors’ group remained as litigants and filed a new application in March 2023.
First Class Action Lawsuit Against any Government for Vaccination Crimes
The three plaintiffs who are representative of the class argue that their injuries have been life changing. Further it is argued that the TGA has been negligent in their approval process for the vaccine. (1)
Specifically (3)
The Applicant alleges that the Respondents’ actions to advance the acceptance and use of the various approved Covid-19 vaccines constitutes negligence and/or misfeasance. They further allege that such negligence/misfeasance caused class members to suffer loss or damage, including but not limited to:-
personal injury;
health care expenses;
additional out-of-pocket expenses;
economic loss;
the need for gratuitous care and, additionally or alternatively, commercial care; and/or
non-economic loss.
The TGA refutes the claim with their safety report report issued on the 20th of April which argues that the vaccines are safe. (1)
…More information is needed…
TBD
TBD
Letter to interested applicants in the class action from NR Barbi Solicitor Pty Ltd -April 26, 2023
Australia, Class Action, Doctors Against Mandates, Injury, Jab, Lawsuit, McCann, Myopericarditis, Queensland, TGA, Vaccine Injury
Qantas Jab Mandate Case
Re: the Legality of Mandating Covid Injections for Qantas Ariline Pilots as a Condition for Employment
Facts of the Case
*updated Dec 14, 2022
The “Magnificent Qantas 24” was a group of 24 Airline Staff, Now numbering 60!! These staff were brave enough to stand up for basic workplace rights and Freedom to Choose. All have now been terminated and egregiously accused of “Serious Misconduct” for deciding they didn’t want to take the risk of the injection.[2]
As their site says: [1]
‘Freedoms have to be protected and fought for. This is why we, an all-volunteer group of Australian Air, Land and Sea professionals share a specific mission: to protect our inalienable rights.’ [1]
The employees terminated have brought a ‘breach of contract’ claim against Virgin Australia and Jetstar to the Federal Court, where their case centres around an alleged breaching of their EBA, the Work Health and Safety Act, Privacy Act, the Australian Human Rights Act, the Discrimination Act, and the Fair Work Act. [1]
The employees involved have expressed their unhappiness about what they feel is an infringement on their human rights that lacked – according to their opinion – meaningful consultation and appropriate individualised risk assessment. [1]
‘We are all unemployed since our terminations and … not in a position to fund the type of case the respondents are attempting to force upon us,’ said Shane Murdock, who is a former pilot at Virgin. [1]
Qantas, Virgin, and Jetstar were among the first businesses in the country to bring in mandatory vaccination requirements on staff and passengers during the Covid pandemic. Employees, including pilots, were given a short period of time to comply with vaccination orders or have their employment terminated. Those who are challenging the mandates in court refused to give ‘valid consent’ to vaccination and allege that the vaccine order, in their view, constituted a ‘significant material change’ to their existing employment EBA. [1]
Qantas announced in August 2021 that all frontline staff across the group, including pilots, cabin crew and ground services workers would be required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by 15 November, or face dismissal. [5]
After lodging their class action case with the Federal Court last month, the unvaccinated workers also applied for an urgent interim injunction to prevent Qantas from enforcing disciplinary action under the policy, allowing them to keep their jobs throughout the legal proceedings. [5]
The injunction was denied due to insufficient evidence. [5]
At the interlocutory hearing last month, Grealy argued that Qantas had “failed to undertake sufficient investigation into the safety of the available vaccines” before implementing the company-wide mandate. [5]
“We also say the requirement that employees provide copies of the vaccination certificate to be uploaded to a database is a breach of the Privacy Act,” Grealy argued. [5]
Justice Kylie Downes replied that the claim made was “based on his assessment … There’s no evidence before me from an expert saying this. [5]
“It’s your opinion, and you’re a solicitor.” [5]
The court also heard the unvaccinated workers argue that overall, government public health orders were not lawful, due to being “inconsistent with other legislation which takes precedence”. [5]
Justice Downes told the court it was “difficult to understand” why the applicants waited until after the policy deadline to make an application for “urgent relief” from disciplinary action. [5]
Groups of pilots and former employees have sprung up around the world to fight against vaccine mandates. In Australia, the Aussie Freedom Flyers continue the push to dismantle mandates and restore employment to those who were sacked. [1]
Freedom Flyer groups have been unifying internationally under the Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition, who raise a range of separate safety concerns following several ‘near miss’ events internationally related to pilot heart emergencies. They are, amongst other things, requesting increased scrutiny on pilot health after vaccination. [1]
‘Covid political decisions damaged the aviation industry’ claims the Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition. [1]
In particular, the ‘Magnificent Qantas 24’ …. are former airline employees involved in the fight. [1]
Qantas has announced it will be dropping vaccine requirements for international travel starting July 19, (finally) bringing it in line with many other international airlines. While unvaccinated passengers are set to take to the skies, employees of the airline are under strict vaccination orders. [1]
These orders remain in place despite staff shortages that have seen Australia’s airports descend into chaos. Lengthy delays, alarming luggage losses, crowds of ticket-waving parents trying to calm screaming children while queuing to the point no one knows where the queue actually is – a general aura of aggravation has become synonymous with flying in the post-pandemic world. [1]
The hole left by unvaccinated staff has been compounded by ground staff who also lost their jobs over a separate dispute. [1]
Even though airlines are desperate, they have not indicated any intention of welcoming back experienced employees who were sacked for refusing vaccine orders. This is especially true of pilots, who are not easy to come by. Worse, Virgin, Jetstar, and Qantas are fighting some of these unvaccinated former employees in court. [1]
Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce said in August of 2021: [1]
‘Having a fully vaccinated workforce will safeguard our people against the virus but also protect our customers and the communities we fly to. [1]
‘We understand there will be a very small number of people who decide not to get the vaccine, and that’s their right, but it’s our responsibility to provide the safest possible environment for our employees and for our customers.’ [1]
An expected win in Federal Court, will set a precedent for the entire country.
A case was filed on 21 Jan 2022 and is proceeding through the legal system.
On Monday Feb 21, 2022, Federal Court Justice Darryl Rangiah – who has repeatedly expressed his concern about the lack of clarity in the complainant’s case – requested that the lawyer representing the group rewrite the case for the third time.
The complainant’s lawyer Rob Grealy again promised to produce medical and scientific evidence in support of his case that Qantas’ decision to introduce a COVID vaccine mandate for all staff was discriminatory and unlawful.
“There are circumstances in which the Human Rights Act allows discrimination or impingement on human rights where those circumstances are serious enough to warrant that sort of conduct,” Grealy said.
“In our view, the risk posed by the virus in the Qantas workplace was not significant enough to warrant the vaccination mandate.”
A directions hearing for their case took place on July 12, 2022. Submissions of evidence have begun, with another directions hearing scheduled for December 7. [1]
The next court date for a ‘Case Management Hearing’ is Feb 6 2023.[3]
This case has the potential to set a global precedent by overturning airline vaccine mandates for pilots.
These employees recognised that the corporate mandates, pushed at Qantas and Jetstar, were operating out of their lane of expertise and were a clear breach of their employment EBA contracts, AND the fact that NO medical personnel are legally allowed to administer a medicine if there is any evidence of coercion, manipulation or undue pressure. The policy of the Qantas group clearly stated – No Jab No Job, this is the definition of coercion. [2]
… the Qantas Group is seeking to comply with what it understands to be lawful public health orders and directions imposed by the states in which it operates its business. Further, the Qantas Group operates a six-stage process by which it communicates with employees who do not wish to be vaccinated. It has given its employees months to get vaccinated, and they have not done so. [4]
This mandate problem can be seen when challenges to NSW health orders were dismissed: ‘It is important to note that the Supreme Court made it clear that the Court’s role was not to assess the merits of the Public Health Orders as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the sole task of the Supreme Court was to determine the legality of the Public Health Orders within the limits of the Public Health Act.’ [1]
A first interlocutory application filed 21 January 2022 asking for relief from the mandates was dismissed by the judge. [4]
…More information is needed…
Air Safety, Airline, Airways, Aussie Freedom Flyers, Australia, Coercion, Employment Discrimination, Injection, Jab, Magnificent Qantas 24, Mandate, Motion, No Jab, No Job, Pilots, Qantas, Queensland, Terminated, Travel
SA Mandate Case
Re: the Legality of Violating the Rights of a person’s Medical Autonomy via a state enforced injection
Facts of the Case
*updated March 11, 2022
Nurse and AFLW Adelaide Crows player Deni Varnhagen is among a group of four education and health workers seeking a judicial review of the mandates, which they claim are invalid. In addition, The Supreme Court heard two police officers who also want to be added to the case, challenging the mandatory vaccination policy for SA Police. [1]
Two healthcare workers and two education workers all claim to have lost their jobs due to vaccine mandates introduced under SA’s Emergency Management Act. [3] Dual Adelaide AFLW premiership defender Deni Varnhagen will not be allowed to play in the competition this season after refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. [4]
The applicants are seeking an expedited hearing and have asked for a three-day trial during the week beginning March 14, which falls five days before the state election. [1]
Nurse Deni Varnhagen, the primary Plaintiff said: [2]
“We are all just here for freedom of choice basically, we all deserve the right to decide what we put into our bodies,” Ms Varnhagen said.
“Coercion is not consent. We shouldn’t be losing our jobs or even be forced.
“I wish I was at work caring for people, doing the things that I’m good at.”
The mandatory vaccination direction came into effect yesterday (Nov 1, 2021), but hundreds of staff across the health system have not met the deadline. On Tuesday (Nov 2, 2021), Women’s and Children’s Hospital CEO Lindsay Gough confirmed that at her hospital alone 133 people had not been vaccinated. [1]
Lawyers for the state government said although they agreed the matter needed to be heard urgently, they may apply for an application to vacate that trial date depending on preparations and the ability to get its own expert witness. [1]
A lawyer for the applicants also foreshadowed an application to have an auxiliary judge — either retired or from interstate — hear the trial due to any perceived bias arising out of the Courts Administration Authority imposing its own vaccination mandate. [1]
The court heard the applicants would call Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky to give evidence about “technical matters relating to the vaccine”. [1]
The group’s lawyer, Loretta Polson, said outside court that “compelling, scientific, medical evidence” would be presented “to demonstrate that vaccination does not prevent COVID-19 transmission”. [1]
She also questioned the power of SA Police Commissioner Grant Stevens — the state coordinator during the coronavirus pandemic — to impose mandates. [1]
“We are amending the application to challenge a further mandate directed to police officers,” Ms Polson said. [1]
“Police officers are now being advised that they need to be vaccinated at the risk of losing their livelihood and careers. [1]
How many more insidious mandates are to be imposed upon the workers of South Australia by a public servant?” [1]
At a directions hearing on Thursday (Feb 17 2022), the court set down four days to hear the case starting on March 17. [5]
This case challenges the right of a government or employer to force unwanted substances into its citizens/employees
…More information is needed…
…More information is needed…
…More information is needed…
…More information is needed…
…More information is needed…
…More information is needed…
AFLW, Adelaide, Australia, Crows, Deni, education, Flinders University, health workers, judicial review, Loretta Polson, mandates, Nikolai, Nurse, Petrovsky, player, professor, South Australia, Supreme Court, Vaccine, Varnhagen