How the Queensland Vaccine Mandate Unlawful Ruling Affects Property Law in Brisbane
Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels
In February 2024, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that COVID-19 vaccine mandates imposed on certain frontline workers were unlawful. The decision in Johnston & Ors v Carroll has sent ripples through many areas of law, including property law in Brisbane and throughout Queensland. At Enlight Lawyers, we help property owners, tenants, and investors understand how this landmark ruling impacts their rights and obligations.
Key Takeaways
The Queensland Supreme Court found that vaccination directions for police and ambulance officers were invalid because they were not authorised by the Public Health Act 2005.
This ruling may affect the enforceability of vaccine requirements in commercial and residential leases.
Property owners and tenants should review lease clauses that reference public health directives or vaccination status.
The decision reinforces the principle that government mandates must have clear legal authority, which can influence property-related disputes.
What the Queensland Vaccine Mandate Unlawful Ruling Means
The case involved directions issued by the Queensland Police Commissioner and the Chief Executive of Queensland Health requiring police officers and ambulance officers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Justice Applegarth declared these directions unlawful because they exceeded the powers granted under the Public Health Act 2005 and the Police Service Administration Act 1990. The court emphasised that such mandates must be specifically authorised by legislation.
Practical Application in Property Law
While the ruling directly concerns employment and public health, its reasoning has significant implications for property law in Queensland. Many commercial leases and residential tenancy agreements include clauses that require compliance with public health directions. If a direction is later found to be unlawful, tenants may argue that they were not obliged to comply, and landlords cannot enforce those requirements.
For example, during the pandemic, some commercial landlords required tenants to ensure their staff were vaccinated as a condition of leasing premises. If a tenant refused, the landlord might have claimed a breach of lease. Following the Johnston decision, a tenant could challenge such a requirement on the basis that the underlying public health direction was invalid.
Similarly, in residential tenancies, a landlord may have attempted to restrict access to rental properties based on vaccination status. The ruling suggests that without clear legislative authority, such restrictions may not be enforceable in Queensland.
Common Risks or Mistakes
Assuming all vaccine mandates were lawful: The ruling shows that only mandates with proper legal authorisation are valid.
Including vague references to "public health directions" in leases without specifying which directions apply.
Failing to update lease templates after the ruling to reflect the current legal landscape.
Overlooking the possibility that a tenant may challenge a direction that lacks statutory backing.
Step-by-Step Process: Reviewing Your Lease After the Ruling
Identify lease clauses that reference public health directions, vaccination requirements, or compliance with government orders.
Check the authority of any direction you relied on — was it issued under a valid Act or regulation?
Assess the impact of the Johnston decision on those clauses. If the direction was unlawful, the clause may be unenforceable.
Seek legal advice from our property law team to determine your rights and obligations.
Amend future leases to avoid reliance on potentially invalid government directions.
Table: Pre- and Post-Ruling Comparison
| Aspect | Before the Ruling | After the Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Vaccine mandate enforceability | Assumed lawful if issued by health authorities | Must be specifically authorised by statute |
| Lease clauses referencing public health directions | Generally accepted as valid | May be challenged if the direction lacked authority |
| Landlord's ability to require vaccination | Could be enforced as a lease term | Likely unenforceable unless based on a valid law |
| Tenant's right to refuse | Limited | Strengthened if the direction was unlawful |
Practical Next Steps
The Johnston ruling is a reminder that government directions must have clear legal authority. Whether you are a property owner, tenant, or investor, it is wise to review any lease terms that rely on public health orders.
At Enlight Lawyers, we offer fixed fees and a free initial consultation. Our team speaks Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Mandarin. We are located at 10/1-3 Noel Street, Slacks Creek QLD, and can be reached on (07) 3495 1884. Contact us to discuss how this ruling affects your property interests.