The first case management hearing in the AVrN’s attempt to get all the approvals for the COVID vaccines removed took place earlier this afternoon.
Her Honour Justice Melissa Perry was quick early on to identify an issue between two applications that had appeared conflated when they should be separated. That being the core application for the vaccine approval to be removed in general, and the injunction to get the approval for the kids removed specifically. So she asked for a follow up concise statement from the applicant to address this and some other issues.
To my disappointment, the respondent didn’t give notice of an application to have the matter struck out as an abuse of process and with no prospect of success. But what was done was that notice was given that the respondent’s position was that the applicant “lacked standing” to make the application. The effect of this in the end would in fact be the same – the matter would be tossed albeit for the different reason of being outside the Federal’s Court’s original jurisdiction as such. The respondent was also asked for a concise statement.
Hopefully both of those are unrestricted documents.
In addition – and this makes sense – is the note about the reasons for the TGA’s decision for approval. The public reasons are all there and always have been, but there are additional matters that would come under commercial confidentiality, or the equivalent government confidentiality. All this would do is prevent the publication of the documents (or rather no one outside of the proceeding could see it – including me, and rightly so). Such an application would need to be made through the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act and not Freedom of Information (an application under the latter would fail as the documents would be exempt from that).
There was a lot of cleaning up to do, and when the legal representative for the applicant, Mark Robinson (it would appear that I was wrong on my January 12 blog entry about him not knowing about this – add another fool who is putting ideals ahead of actual law alongside the idiots who prosecuted the Kassam and Henry cases in the Supreme Court of New South Wales) claimed they were ready to go, Her Honour respectfully informed him that they were not, and rightly so. One paragraph in the Statement of Claim needs better particulars for a start (I agree – it’s too general) and as a result the originating application needed to be amended. And one assumes substantively enough for it to need to be served on the respondent again.
One more note – the respondent hasn’t filed anything as of yet. One assumes that will be done over the next two weeks. The next case management hearing has been set down for March 3 at 4:15pm.
I will be keeping an eye on the AVrN website and their Facebook page for any more news from their end. There are three mystery Affidavits that have been filed by the applicant as well. I would love to know who they are from, but there is no way to find out unless I apply for access as a non party. Whether or not I do that is a decision I still have to make, but at present pending any changes in the meantime I won’t make that decision until after the next hearing on March 3.