A person who was unvaccinated against COVID-19 (“the Applicant”) applied for leave to apply for judicial review to challenge (a) the legislation and commencement of the Prevention and Control of Disease (Vaccine Pass) Regulation (Cap 599L) (“VP Regulation”); and (b) announcements and decisions made pursuant to Cap 599F to add venues such as markets, supermarkets, malls and restaurants to a Vaccine Pass.
The Applicant was unable to identify any specific ground of public law challenge but the Putative Respondents addressed the merits of the intended challenge by reference to the fundamental rights potentially or conceivably relied upon by the Applicant as being engaged. Reference was made to the liberty of movement under Article 8 of the Bill of Rights and the right to private life under Article 14 of the Bill of Rights.
Dismissing the application, Hon Coleman J held that:
- the Vaccine Pass (“VP”) requirements were prescribed by law; and
- applying the proportionality test, (i) the VP requirements were rationally connected with the advancement of the legitimate aim of protecting public health and (ii) neither the VP Regulation nor Cap 599F was manifestly without reasonable foundation, which was the applicable standard of review, and (iii) the impugned measures seemed to strike a reasonable balance between the societal benefits of the restriction or encroachment and the restricting of the Applicant’s individual rights.
Click here for the judgment.
Dislcaimer:
All the statements and information/ suggestions on this website are made/ provided without legal responsibility and do not constitute legal or other professional advice. No legal liability shall arise from any errors or omissions in relation to any of the statements/ information/ suggestions on this website. No express or implied warranties of accuracy or fitness for any particular purpose or use with respect to the statements/ information/ suggestions on this website are made. This website is for general reference only. The law changes from time to time.