'No jab, no job': Supreme Court rejects request to rule on policy directly

They agreed that the matter is of public importance

'No jab, no job': Supreme Court rejects request to rule on policy directly

Teachers and health professionals against COVID-19 jab mandates have found themselves rejected by the Supreme Court after they asked them to rule directly on the said policy. New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science and a similar group for teachers recently lost their attempt in the High Court to review New Zealand's COVID-19 mandate. It rejected their first ground, where they said the mandate is "not legally valid" because it is not consistent with their right to refuse to undergo medical treatment.

Their second ground, which states that the mandate is "invalid" because it was not a reasonable limit on their right to refuse medical treatment, is still pending for a hearing in December. But with the first ground already dismissed, the group went against usual protocol of taking the matter to the Court of Appeal and went directly to the Supreme Court appealing under "exceptional circumstances," reasoning that the issue was of public importance.

Read more: New Zealand government announces COVID-19 vaccine mandate for 40% of workers

The Supreme Court, however, rejected their request, saying their request does not meet the requirements necessary.

"We accept that there would be benefit in resolving the question of the validity of the order with urgency. But we do not consider that this benefit outweighs the detriment of this Court being required to resolve the issues that arise in the proposed appeal without the benefit of the views of the Court of Appeal," it said.

"The application for leave to bring a direct appeal to this Court is dismissed," it ruled.

New Zealand has mandated healthcare workers and teachers to receive their first dose by November 15 and their second dose by January 22.

Recent articles & video

'We need more health workers': NZ invests $76 million to grow workforce

Casino worker wins $120K because she wasn't invited to work drinks

Miscommunication error! Employees falling out with colleagues over email gaffes

Holland Beckett partner: Women in law don’t have to choose between career and family

Most Read Articles

McDonald's to leave Russia as CEO thanks 62,000 employees

Goldman Sachs gives its senior leaders uncapped leave

Should New Zealand mandate a four-day working week?