Qantas Jab Mandate Case

Qantas Jab Mandate Case

Qantas Jab Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of Mandating Covid Injections for Qantas Ariline Pilots as a Condition for Employment


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Jan 21, 2022 (filed)
  • Location: Australia
  • Court: Federal Court of Australia, Queensland
  • Case #: QUD17/2022
  • Plaintiff: Mr. Marc Motion & others
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Rob Grealy
  • Defendant: Qantas Airways Ltd.
  • Trial Type: Employment Contract Law
  • Justice: Rangiah, Kylie Downes
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*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]

Government Mandates

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]

Freedom Flyer Groups

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 Drops Travel Mandates

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.


Plaintiff’s Argument

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]


Defendant’s Argument

… 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]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

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]





Pilots vs. Quantas Mandates -Dec 9 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Quantas Pilot Speaks Out -Dec 9 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Corona Ausschuss #134 Quantas Pilot Speaks Out – Full interview -Dec 9 2022

source: Odysee/ longXXvids

Quantas pilot protests – part 1 – Sep 7 2021

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Global Aviation: “Passengers Would Be Livid”

source: Odysee/ Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

Aussie Pilots Sue Over Safety Concerns -July 17 2022

source: Rumble/ GoodSauce

Global Aviation: Fit to Fly? Part 1

source: Odysee/ Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

Global Aviation: Fit to Fly? Part 2

source: Odysee/ Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

Global Aviation: Fit to Fly? Part 3

source: Odysee/ Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition



  1. Freedom Flyers: the fight against vaccine mandates
  3. Commonwealth Courts Applications for file
  4. Federal Court of Australia -Motion v Qantas Airways Limited [2022] FCA 25- Judgement Jan 24 2022
  5. Judge calls case against Qantas vaccine mandate ‘unclear’ and ‘scrambled’



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

Back to All Cases





Re: the data & proof of placebo control studies during vaccine clinical trials


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: (filed) Oct 12, 2017
  • Location: New York, USA
  • Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: ICAN
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
  • Defendant: HHS, FDA
  • Trial Type: FOIA
  • Judge:
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated: April 16, 2022



The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was sent a 19-page legal notice on October 12, 2017 by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) requesting confirmation that certain obligations regarding vaccine safety required under the 1986 Act had been fulfilled or will be fulfilled. [1]

Specifically at issue is the use of placebo’s (inert substances) during clinical safety trials

The notice asked (HHS) to “[p]lease explain how HHS justifies licensing any pediatric vaccine without first conducting a long-term clinical trial in which the rate of adverse reactions is compared between the subject group and a control group receiving an inert placebo?” [3]

ICAN sought copies of the reports HHS was required to submit to Congress every two years, starting in 1988, detailing improvements it made to vaccine safety. ICAN was represented by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. [2]

ICAN was founded by Del Bigtree who hosts the weekly live online news program “The HighWire,” and is an Emmy-award winning producer of the CBS medical talk show “The Doctors.” He is producer of the groundbreaking documentary “Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe.” [2]

“The 1986 National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act granted economic immunity to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine injuries and hence eviscerated their economic incentive for them to take responsibility for vaccine safety,” says Bigtree. “Market forces driving vaccine safety were simply eliminated.” [2]

Congress therefore charged the Secretary of HHS with the explicit responsibility to assure vaccine safety. Biannual reports of HHS’s progress in improving vaccine safety were to be submitted to Congress. Yet, as ICAN has now proven, these reports were never created. [2]

The request included over 55 organizations whose members exceed five million Americans also voicing concern about vaccine safety. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents show that the agency took the notice very seriously calling upon all internal departments and resources to craft their response. According to the FOIA documents, all HHS operating divisions, The National Vaccine Program Office, Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, and The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health all took part in the response. In Addition, FOIA email documents also state, “The National Vaccine Program Office staff has pulled together a draft response and is requesting that it be cleared with CDC, OGC, FDA, HRSA, NIH, and AHRQ for review prior to signature.”  [1]

Despite nine different government entities working on the response, their eventual January 18, 2018 reply was both lackluster and telling. Their brief 9-page response was unable to provide solid answers to the eleven questions asked of the agency concerning vaccine safety. The flimsily HHS reply triggered a deeply thorough 88-page response from ICAN laying out every detail concerning the problems and issues happening in regards to vaccine safety stemming from HHS. Its opening page writes: [1]

Given the gravity of HHS’s responsibility, it is deeply troubling that the majority of HHS’s letter contains little more than broad unsupported conclusory assertions. Most of these conclusory assertions do not withstand basic scrutiny. HHS’s responses even often contradict its own source materials.”  [1]

Among several concerning points, HHS choose to began their January reply by writing, “…many pediatric vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials that included a placebo.” [1]

As defined by the CDC, a “placebo” is: “A substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings.” [1]

HHS’s response also claimed that safety in these trials was reviewed for a significant duration, without specifying any duration. [3]

Recently on his show The HighWire, host Del Bigtree began publicly unpacking ICAN’s 88-page response by focusing on pre-licensure vaccine safety trials. The HHS reply contradicted itself by first admitting,

Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required. In some cases, inclusion of placebo control groups is considered unethical.

Later in their same letter, HHS states, “Vaccines are held to strict standards of safety.” [1]

Bigtree stated: “They’ve now printed it. So now you know for a fact that they just admitted those products you’re injecting into your kids have never been compared to a control. An inert saline injection.”​ [1]

Furthermore, according to HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule, babies receive 3 injections of each of the following vaccines between day one and 6 months of life all untested against a placebo control. [1]



Even pro-vaccine luminaries like Dr. Stanley Plotkin, vaccine authority and author of Plotkin’s Vaccines, appears to be in agreement with ICAN. Emails from a recent FOIA request show Plotkin wrote in June 2018 correspondence, “One point I do agree with [Robert F] Kennedy [Jr] about: there should be more safety studies…”​ [1]




Vaccine manufacturers insist that their products are safe and effective, despite many in the public reporting otherwise (injuries). Control experiments are essential to understanding how a medical product performs. Until this FOIA request, there has not been a public disclosure of this information casting doubt as to the “Science” underpinning the safe and effective claim. This information could harm the faith in one or all vaccines, and could be potentially destructive to this industry.


Plaintiff’s Argument

Given the conflicting information coming from HHS, ICAN’s 88-page response pressured their assertions writing: [1]

It is troubling that HHS chose to begin its response by misstating that prior to licensure for children “ many pediatric vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials that included a placebo.” At worst, HHS knowingly perpetuated this inaccurate claim but at best, HHS was unaware this claim was incorrect. This leaves the public to wonder what other critical assumptions underpinning HHS’s confidence in vaccine safety are incorrect.” [1]

ICAN’s original HHS notice directly pointed to concerns about the two Hepatitis B vaccines licensed for injection into one-day-old babies. Namely that the vaccines, according to the FDA’s own vaccine insert included in the original HHS notice, show that not only were the shots not tested against inert placebos, both vaccines were licensed after trials that solicited adverse reactions for only four days [Merck] and five days [GlaxoSmithKline] respectively after vaccination. To this point, HHS responded by referring back to the same inserts which contained the concerning data by simply writing, “Data relied upon in licensing infant use of hepatitis B vaccines is summarized in the respective package inserts.” [1]

ICAN’s response included a detailed chart containing every pediatric vaccine, citing to FDA documents, which indisputably proves that it was categorically false for HHS and the FDA to claim that “many pediatric vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials that included a placebo.” [3]

Perhaps one of the most damning findings referred to in ICAN’s 88-page HHS letter was titled HHS’s “Safety” Pyramid Scheme. Since inert placebo controls are not required and rarely used in vaccine safety testing, other vaccines take that role in what are referred to as “active controls.”  ICAN’s 88-page response to HHS points out to the agency the following: [1]

HHS’s own industry guidance for drug testing explains that an active control is only appropriate if it is a “drug whose effect is well-defined,” which means “historical placebo-controlled trials are available to define the active control effect.” Despite its own policy and guidance, HHS does not require this minimal assurance for vaccines.” [1]



 [SOURCE] Page 14 ICAN Response December 31, 2018

[SOURCE] Page 14 ICAN Response December 31, 2018


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…



The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) settled a court-ordered stipulation  admitting that they could not produce 30 years of required evidence showing they have made improvements in the manufacturing, testing, warning, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting and research on vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse reactions as mandated by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986 Act). [1]

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 14, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has admitted that, in direct violation of Federal law, it failed to provide a single vaccine safety report to Congress for thirty years, according to Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN).

HHS conceded that those reports do not exist and the Court entered an order confirming this concession. [2]



ICAN’s response:

“It is apparent that HHS doesn’t have a clue as to the actual safety profile of the now 39 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age, including in utero,” said Bigtree. “In 1986, a one-year old child received eleven doses. [2]

“HHS spends billions annually promoting vaccines and generates a steady stream of reports promoting vaccines,” Bigtree says. “Yet, when, despite Federal law, HHS cannot bother to complete the simple task of preparing a biennial report on vaccine safety, there is little hope HHS is tackling the much harder job of improving vaccine safety.” [2]

The 1986 Act shifted financial liability for vaccine injuries to the U.S. Government which has since 1986 paid over $3.9 billion for serious vaccine injuries. [2]

The reality is that none – save one – of the pediatric vaccines was licensed based on a placebo controlled clinical trial! … No proof has ever been provided. [3]

Further ICAN Lawsuits
  • ICAN also sued the FDA numerous times to force it to release clinical trial reports for other vaccines, including, for example, the chicken pox vaccine, which we explained in another recent legal update.
  • when the Phase III trial for AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine was underway in England using another vaccine (Menveo) as a control (instead of a placebo), ICAN filed a forceful petition demanding that the FDA mandate that all clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines use a placebo control as well as track safety long-term in a properly sized trial.

Nine days after ICAN filed its petition, on June 30, 2020, the FDA changed course and issued emergency guidance to industry that all COVID-19 clinical trials must use a placebo control.

  • On July 17, 2020, ICAN sued the FDA in federal court demanding the entire clinical trial report for Menveo, just in case the agency was considering permitting this vaccine as a control in the AstraZeneca trial to be conducted in the United States.  On July 20, 2020, ICAN also filed a forceful amended petition with the FDA thanking it for requiring a placebo control group but demanding, among other things, that it also require that these clinical trials track all adverse events during the entire duration of the trial – not just for a limited time period.
  • Not long thereafter, in mid-September, in a highly unusual move, the full clinical trial protocols for the COVID-19 vaccines for which ICAN filed its petitions were released to the public.  See copies for each of the manufacturer’s vaccines: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.  Those protocols revealed that some of ICAN’s demands regarding the duration for tracking vaccine safety had been met.



Tucker Carlson’s Explosive Interviview with RFK jr 26/11/2021

source: Odysee\AussieFighter

ICAN Lead Attorney, Aaron Siri on recent legal wins


Pandemic of the VACCINATED—75 Athletes Collapse from Heart Failure

source: Youtube\apidta



  1. The US Government Loses the Vaccine Debate
  2. ICAN vs. HHS: Key Legal Win Recasts Vaccine Debate
  3. ICAN v. FDA – ICAN Brings Lawsuit Related to “Placebo” in COVID-19 Clinical Trial



1986, Adverse Reaction, Babies, Bigtree, Congress, Control, Del, Experiment, FDA, Field Surveillance, FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, GlaxoSmithKline, Health and Human Services, Hepatitis B, HHS, HighWire, ICAN, Informed Consent Action Network, Injection, Kennedy, Manufacturing, Merck, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Nonprofit, Placebo, Plotkin, Reporting, RFK, Risk, Testing, US Department of, Warning 

Back to All Cases