Hunt v Gerrard; Ishiyama v Aitken [2025] QCA 126

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - STANDING TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS - GENERALLY - where the Chief Health Officer issued a series of directions regarding vaccination against COVID-19 - where the appellants sought declaratory relief as to the invalidity of particular directions which had been made purportedly in lawful exercise of the Public Health Act 2005 (Qld) Part 7A powers and also sought orders quashing or setting aside those directions - where the directions were revoked after the applications had been filed - where the respondents brought an application for summary dismissal claiming the appellants no longer had standing - where the primary judge granted the summary dismissals on the basis that the appellants no longer had standing to seek the relief claimed in the various applications - where the respondents argued that the primary judge's decision should be affirmed on the basis that none of the appellants were now exposed to any risk of future prosecution for non-compliance with the impugned decisions, and as such the relief sought would have no foreseeable consequences for the appellants - where the Attorney-General, as intervenor, argued that the primary judge's decision could be affirmed on the alternate ground that it would be inappropriate for the proceedings to continue in circumstances where the appellants were no longer affected by the directions, and declarations would produce no foreseeable consequences - where the standard of appellate review to be applied was the "correctness standard" as explained in Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; (1979) 142 CLR 531 - whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the applicants had no standing to seek declaratory relief concerning alleged past breaches of their common law rights or their rights under the (Qld) - whether the primary judge erred by exercising power under (Qld) in relation to claims that were not made under that Act - whether the primary judge erred by failing to apply a very high threshold to a summary application - whether the primary judge erred by failing to appreciate that once the Attorney-General and the Commission had become parties the question of the standing of the appellants had become irrelevant - whether the primary judge's decision should nevertheless be affirmed on the grounds proposed by the respondents and the Attorney-General - whether the primary judge erred in awarding costs to the respondents from 4 February 2023