| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| March 26. 2024. | 2024. NZCA 74. | High Court of New Zealand | Vaccination; right to education | The High Court of New Zealand held that mandatory vaccination requirement for education workers with very narrow exemptions exclusively on medical grounds was constitutional. | The Ministry for Covid-19 response ordered mandatory vaccination for educational workers in New Zealand. Only a verry narrow circle of exemptions were provided exclusively on medical grounds. Several workers from the educational sector turned to the High Court, which dismissed the claim. The High Court held that the extraordinary public health concerns justified the mandatory vaccination measure. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZCA-74.pdf | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/nztsos-inc-v-minister-for-covid-19-response | ||
| March 10. 2023. | no. CIV-2022-485-000570 | High Court of New Zealand | Vaccination | The High Court of New Zealand held that the deprivation of non-vaccinated family carers from their financial support during the public health emergency was unconstitutional. | A group of family carers submitted a claim to the High Court of New Zealand to annul the ministerial decree depriving non-vaccinated family carers from their financial support during the public health emergency. The High Court held that the decree was irrational and disregarded the character of the public health concerns. Moreover, non-vaccinated family carers would still stay close to their relatives also without financial aid, therefore, the health of vulnerable family members could not be protected. Therefore, the decree was annulled as unconstitutional. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2023/03/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-annuls-ministers-order-requiring-family-carers;
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/485714/covid-19-high-court-finds-vaccine-mandate-extension-to-care-and-support-workers-invalid |
|||
| December 7. 2022. | 0221208-Minute-Te-Whatu-Ora | High Court of New Zealand | Rights of children; right to privacy; right to life | The High Court of New Zealand placed a six-month-old baby under the guardianship of the New Zealand Health Authority because the parents rejected to provide consent for a life-saving operation requiring blood transfusion from vaccinated persons. | A six-months-old baby suffered from serious heart illnesses and for the saving of his life, blood transfusion was also necessary. The parents refused to provide their consent to the operation on the ground that they did not want to involve vaccinated persons as donors in the process. The New Zealand Health Authority requested from the High Court to place the baby under the guardianship of the Health Authority to be able to perform the operation despite the disagreement of the parents, because blood from non-vaccinated persons could not be provided. The High Court held that the conduct of the operation served the best interest of the child, and also held that no evidence has been provided that the transfusion of vaccinated blood would have harmful effect on the health of the baby. As a consequence, taking into account the urgency of the matter, the guardianship was granted, and the operation could go ahead with the transfusion of blood from vaccinated persons. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2022/20221208-Minute-Te-Whatu-Ora.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-0221208-minute-te-whatu-ora-2022-12-07 | ||
| August 16. 2022. | 2022] NZHC 2026 | High Court of New Zealand | Freedom of religion; freedom of assembly; vaccination | The High Court of New Zealand held that additional restrictions for non-vaccinated persons to participate at assemblies including religious ones meant a justified and constitutional limitation of freedom of assembly and freedom of religion in the extraordinary public health context. | Religious churches and individual leaders of religious groups challenged before the High Court of New Zealand the additional restrictions imposed on the gatherings of non-vaccinated persons including the religious gatherings. If persons without Covid-19 vaccination certificate participated at the assembly, a lower number of participants was permitted. The High Court considered that the restrictions meant a justifiable state interference into the right to assembly and freedom of religion; moreover, the appearance of the Omicron variant also stressed the importance of such measures. For these reasons, the claims were dismissed and the constitutionality of the contested measure was upheld. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2022/2022-NZHC-2026.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-2022-nzhc-2026-2022-08-16 | ||
| June 8. 2022. | 2022 NZHC 1333. | High Court of New Zealand | Right to privacy; freedom of movement; discrimination | The High Court of New Zealand held that the temporal introduction of entry visa requirement for non-New Zealand citizens during the public health emergency did not constitute the unconstitutional restriction of any fundamental right. | Two New-Zealand citizens who had homosexual spouses with a foreign citizenship alleged the violation of their right to privacy, and also their discriminatory treatment on the basis of sexual orientation, because their spouses were unable to return to New Zealand during the public health emergency due to the temporal introduction of entry visa requirement for non-New Zealand citizens. The High Court rejected the claims and held that neither right to privacy was restricted on an unconstitutional manner; nor discriminatory treatment has been implemented, therefore, the claims were rejected and the constitutionality of the impugned measures were upheld. | https://www.justice.govt.nz/jdo_documents/workspace___SpacesStore_66fb446b_ae70_4f3e_95aa_b1e97db40e2f.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-2022-nzhc-1333-2022-06-08 | https://rykenlaw.nz/lapsing-visitor-visas-during-the-pandemic/ | |
| April 27. 2022. | Grounded Kiwis Group In. v Min. of Health, CIV-2021-485-556 | High Court of New Zealand | Freedom of movement | The High Court of New Zealand held that the woucher system established for the entry of New Zealand citizens into the country during the public health emergency amounted to a necessary and proportionate restriction of freedom of movement, however, the online proceeding failed to prioritise New Zealand citizens over foreigners, and also failed to consider the individual circumstances of each person concerned, therefore, the mechanism was unconstitutional. | The Government of New Zealand introduced a woucher system for entering into the country during the public health emergency: people aiming at entering into New Zealand had to apply for a woucher and were randomly placed in an allocated quarantine venue selected by the online system set up for this purpose. The applicants claimed that this amounted to an unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on their freedom of movement; moreover, their right to return into New Zealand as citizens was also breached. The applicants also argued that the online system failed to prioritise New Zealand citizens over foreigners; furthermore, the mechanism also failed to consider the individual circumstances of each person concerned. The High Court found that the measure amounted to a necessary and proportionate limitation on freedom of movement; however, the operation of the online system was unconstitutional due to the lack of sufficiently detailed individual assessment. | http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2022/832.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-grounded-kiwis-group-v-min-health-civ-2021-485-556 | https://www.simpsongrierson.com/insights-news/legal-updates/miq-an-inherently-flawed-system | |
| April 8. 2022. | NZDSOS Inc v Min. for Covid-19 Response, CIV-2021-485-595 | High Court of New Zealand | Vaccination | The High Court of New Zealand held that the mandatory vaccination of employees from the health, disability and education sectors amounted to a reasonable limitations of fundamental rights during the public health emergency. | The claimants argued that the mandatory vaccination of employees from the health, disability and education sectors meant an unreasonable and overbroad limitation of fundamental rights such as right to refuse a medical treatment. The High Court considered that the vaccination mandates meant reasonable state interferences during the public health emergency and the exemptions provided from the scope of the mandates were carefully tailored. At the time of delivering the decision, the vaccination mandate of teachers had been repealed, but its constitutionality was also confirmed; while the still existing vaccination mandate for the health and disability sector was also approved by the Court. The application was dismissed. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Judgments-online/2022-NZHC-716.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzdsos-inc-v-min-covid-19-response-civ-2021-485-595 | ||
| 8 April 2022 | NZDSOS Incorporated v Minister for Covid-19 Response | Supreme Court of New Zealand | Mandatory vaccination; right to refuse medical treatment | The Supreme Court of New Zealand held that mandatory Covid-19 vaccination for employees in the education, the health and the disability sectors amounted to a reasonable limitation of human rights under the New Zealand bill of rights, right to refuse medical treatment should not justify exemptions from the scope of vaccination mandates. | The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard a case concerning the mandatory Covid-19 vaccination of teachers, healthcare workers and employees from the disability sector. The claimants argued that right to refuse medical treatment is applicable to vaccination orders also, therefore, they have the right to remain non-vaccinated. The Supreme Court dismissed the application and cited an extensive case law from different countries to prove, that right to refuse medical treatment is not an unlimited right. Vaccination mandate for teachers, healthcare and disability care workers mean a reasonable restriction of human rights under the New Zealand bill of rights, therefore, the claims should be dismissed, and the claimants shall not be exempted from the scope of vaccination mandates. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2021-NZSC-163.pdf | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/covid-19-related-judgments/#e265-h2-supreme-court | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzdsos-inc-v-min-covid-19-response-civ-2021-485-595 | |
| February 28. 2022. | NZHC 308 | High Court of New Zealand | Freedom of association | The High Court of New Zealand held that the extension of a collective agreement through an executive order meant a violation of freedom of association; the extension order shall have been reconsidered within 14 days of the publication of the High Court ruling. | An employer from the disability sector challenged the governmental decision extending forcibly the efective collective employment agreements due to the public health circumstances. According to the applicant, this meant an unjustifiable restriction of freedom of association. The High Court upheld the claim and ordered the executive to review the extension order within 14 days of the publication of this judgment. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2022-NZHC-308.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzhc-308-2022-02-28 | ||
| February 25. 2022. | NZHC 291 | High Court of New Zealand | Rights of indigenous people; discrimination; right to work; right to religion; vaccination | The High Court of New Zealand found that the termination of employment for non-vaccinated police officers violated unjustifiably several constitutional rights, therefore, this measure was unconstitutional. | Police officers contested a mandatory vaccination order which envisaged the termination of employment for those police officers not complying with this vaccination requirement. The applicants held that this measure infringed their freedom of religion, right to discrimination and right to work and also interfered unjustifiably to the rights of Indigenous people. The High Court upheld the application and set aside the mandatory vaccination order for police officers as unconstitutional. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2022-NZHC-291.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzhc-291-2022-02-25 | ||
| February 1. 2022. | NZHC 67 | High Court of New Zealand | Rights of children; vaccination | The High Court of New Zealand held that the provisional consent provided by the Ministry of Health to use Pfizer vaccines for the vaccination of children between 5-11 years was constitutional. | The applicants challenged the constitutionality of a governmental order providing provisional consent for the use of Pfizer vaccines for the vaccination of children between 5-11 years. The applicants held that the consent was not based on a sufficiently deep analysis, therefore, the rights of children and their special protection were. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Judgments-online/20220201-2022-NZHC-67.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzhc-67-2022-02-01 | ||
| December 6. 2021. | NZHC 3319. | High Court of New Zealand | Vaccination; rights of indigenous people; discrimination; protection of personal data; right to information | The High Court of New Zealand held that the denial of an information request to reveal the data from the vaccination of Maori people was unconstitutional. | The applicants submitted an application to the High Court of New Zealand because the Ministry of Health denied their request to access the information from the vaccination of Maori people. The applicants considered that the denied access based on the data sovereignty of the Maori people and the lack of consultation with them threats the health of this vulnerable group. The High Court agreed with the applicants and ordered that the Ministry shall reveal the information within 3 days in the light of the urgency of the matter. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2021/2021-NZHC-3319.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzhc-3319-2021-12-06 | ||
| November 22. 2021. | NZHC 3154 | High Court of New Zealand | Freedom of movement; immigration | The High Court of New Zealand held that the refusal of residency visa applications from two Afghan citizens was unconstitutional. | The High Court of New Zealand heard the claim of two Afghan nationals, who applied for residency visa in New Zealand, but refused by the Ministry of Immigration in New Zealand. The applicants held that due to the on-going armed conflict in Afghanistan, the public health circumstances do not provide sufficient reason to refuse their application: the risk from prosecution in Afghanistan should outweight the public health concerns. The High Court agreed with the applicants and ordered the Ministry to reconsider the case. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2021-NZHC-3154.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzhc-3154-2021-11-22 | ||
| November 12. 2021. | NZHC 3064. | High Court of New Zealand | Vaccination; right to choose medical treatment | The High Court of New Zealand held that the mandatory vaccination for midviwes, doctors and teachers during the first vawes of the Covid-19 pandemic was constitutional. | Several midviwes, doctors and teachers challenged the constitutionality of the order set mandatory vaccination for these groups. The applicants held that the order infringed several rights provided by the New Zealand Bill of Rights including right to choose medical treatment, and also was unreasonable and unjustifiable in a democratic society. The High Court of New Zealand disagreed with these arguments and upheld the constitutionality of the impugned order. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2021-NZHC-3064.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzhc-3064-2021-11-12 | ||
| November 8. 2021. | 2021] NZHC 3012. | High Court of New Zealand | Vaccination; right to refuse a medical treatment | The High Court of New Zealand held that the termination of employment contract for non-vaccinated aviation security workers was reasonable during the public health emergency. | The High Court of New Zealand heard a challenge of aviation security workers who were dismissed from their workplace due to the non-compliance with a governmental order requiring the vaccination of aviation security workers. The applicants alleged that this order was irrational and infringed their right to refuse a medical treatment provided by the New Zealand Bill of Rights. The High Court considered that the order was carefully worded and provided alternative employment opportunities for the applicants in the border forces, moreover, the vaccination requirement was based on a well-founded research. As a result, the claim was dismissed and the validity of the impugned order was upheld. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2021-NZHC-3012.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-new-zealand-high-court-2021-nzhc-3012-2021-11-08 | ||
| October 28. 2021. | NZHC 2897 | High Court of New Zealand | Freedom of movement; right to privacy; protection of elder people | The High Court of New Zealand held that the denial from a 73-years-old man to spend his isolation period at home instead of a managed facility once returning to New Zealand was unconstitutional, therefore, the case should have been reconsidered by the competent authority. | The High Court of New Zealand heard a petition of a 73-years-old business man who attended a business meeting in the United States of America and when returning to New Zealand, he requested to spend his isolation period in his home instead of a quarantine facility managed by the authorities. His request was denied, then he turned to the High Court for judicial review. The High Court found that the denial of the request was irrational because the quarantine at home would not increase the public health risks, moreover, the individual circumstances, especially the special protection of elder people was not dully considered. Therefore, the authorities were ordered to reconsider the case. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2021-NZHC-2897.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-nzhc-2897-2021-10-28 | ||
| September 24. 2021. | GF v Minister of Covid-19 Response | High Court of New Zealand | Vaccination; right to work | The High Court of New Zealand held that thretaining specific jobs for vaccinated persons was reasonable during the public health emergency. | A woman lost her job during the public health emergency, because a governmental order retained specific jobs for vaccinated persons, and she refused to comply with the vaccination requirement. She argued that the order was ultra vires and lacked any rational ground, while forced employees to take part in a scientific experiment. The High Court found that the order had a legitimate purpose and the extraordinary circumstances justified its implementation. Moreover, the High Court has not competence to decide on scientific issues, or to review the assessment of the executive on such debates. Therefore, the claim was dismissed. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2021/2021-NZHC-2526.pdf |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-gf-v-minister-covid-19-response-2021-09-24; https://nz.vlex.com/vid/gf-v-minister-of-878507327 |
||
| May 18. 2021. | KTI v Minister of Health | High Court of New Zealand | Vaccination | The High Court of New Zealand held that the temporal permission provided for Pfizer vaccines was ultravires, however, due to the allegedly severe public health consequences of such a step, preliminary injunction was not provided for the blocking of this permission. | A medical society challenged before the High Court the temporal permission provided for Pfizer vaccinations in New Zealand during the Covid-19 pandemic. The claim argued that the permission was ultravires, therefore, preliminary injunction was requested for the blocking of these vaccines. The Supreme Court held that Pfizer vaccines were planned to be used for the entire population over 16 years, therefore, the permission provided was ultra vires. However, the blocking of these vaccines would entail far-reaching public health consequences in the light of the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic, therefore, preliminary injunction was not granted for the blocking of Pfizer vaccines. | https://disasterlaw.ifrc.org/sites/default/files/media/disaster_law/2021-09/1107.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-kti-v-minister-health-2021-05-18 | ||
| August 19. 2020. | Borrowdale v Director-General of Health | High Court of New Zealand | Freedom of movement; rule of law | The High Court of New Zealand held that the legal background of the restrictions imposed during the first vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic was contestable, however, the implemented measures meant a necessary and proportionate state interference during the extraordinary public health challenges. | The claimant argued that the lockdown measures ordered by the Government of New Zealand during the first vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic lacked proper legal background, were just grounded on governmental circulars. Moreover, the Director-General of Health authorized the Ministry of Health unlawfully to determine the definition of essential service during the public health emergency. The High Court held that although the contestable legal background of the extraordinary restrictions, the implemented measures were necessary and proportionate especially in the light of the need of urgent state reflection. Moreover, in May 2020. the proper legal background was also established. Finally, the Court held that the Director-General of Health provided a precise definition of essential services during the public health emergency, the Ministry of Health could just apply this definition. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/Borrowdale-v-D-G-of-Health-V_1.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-borrowdale-v-director-general-health-2020-08-19 | https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-08-20/new-zealand-court-partially-upholds-challenge-to-legality-of-covid-19-lockdown/ | |
| May 1. 2020. | Christiansen v The Director General of Health [2020] NZHC 88 | The High Court of New Zealand | Right to privacy; freedom of movement | The High Court of New Zealand held that it was uconstitutional to prohibit for a quarantined person traveling back from London to New Zealand to visit his father who had only a few days to live. | The father of the applicant was hospitalized and the medical prognosis stated that he had only some weeks to live. As a result, the applicant decided to travel back from London to New Zealand to visit his father in the hospital. However, he was quarantined due to the mandatory isolation requirements imposed on persons arriving from abroad, and his request for special exemption to visit his father was rejected. Then, he turned to the High Court and argued that the measures were unconstitutional, therefore, he requested a preliminary injunction against this decision. The High Court considered that the implemented measure meant an unconstitutional limitation on freedom of movement and right to privacy, therefore, the claim was upheld and preliminary injunction was granted to let the applicant out from the quarantine to visit his father in the hospital. | https://courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/Christiansen-v-The-Director-General-of-Health-Results-NZHC-883.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-auckland-registry-christiansen-v-director-general | ||
| April 23. 2020. | A v Ardern [2020] NZHC-769, CIV-2020-404-568 | High Court of New Zealand | Freedom of movement; right to liberty | The High Court of New Zealand held that the lockdown measures ordered during the first vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic were constitutional. | The applicant contested the constitutionality of the curfew measures ordered by the Director-General of Health during the first vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic and argued that these measures amounted to illegal detention, therefore, his family should have been immediately released. The High Court held that in contrast to any detention, the curfew regime allowed several ordinary activities of the persons concerned, its purpose was just to restrict the interpersonal contacts to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. As a consequence, the curfew was a legitimate measure and was constitutional. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2020/A-v-Ardern.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/new-zealand-high-court-new-zealand-v-ardern-2020-nzhc-769-civ-2020-404-568-2020-04-23 | ||
