Australia’s Covid-19 Vaccine Injury Class Action Collapses in Court

Justice Anna Katzmann, Federal Court of Australia

This ruling abruptly ends what was the largest Covid-19 vaccine injury class action ever attempted in Australia.

Although the applicants—those who suffered injury after vaccination—have been given a narrow opportunity to refile, the tone of the judgment suggests that any future attempt faces towering legal and procedural hurdles.

Justice for injured Australians may be slipping further out of reach.

The case that promised justice

The lawsuit levelled serious accusations against key government figures—including former Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) boss Professor John Skerritt, current Secretary of Health Professor Brendan Murphy, Chief Medical Officer Professor Paul Kelly, and former Health Minister Greg Hunt—alleging systemic failures in the approval and promotion of the vaccines under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

But despite the gravity of the allegations, the case was fatally undermined by the dismal performance of the applicants’ senior counsel, Mark Robinson SC, who has since been removed from the legal team.

Mark Robinson, Sydney Senior Counsel

Justice Katzmann’s final judgment described the applicants’ Third Further Amended Statement of Claim (3FASOC)—a sprawling 800-page document—as a work of “narrative prolixity.”

“Reading it is a herculean task,” she remarked. “Trying to make sense of it could drive the reader mad.”

The claim, she found, was “scandalous, oppressive, embarrassing, and vexatious.”

The structure of the document—littered with vague assertions, speculative leaps and repetitive references—imposed an unreasonable burden on the respondents, who were somehow expected to mount a legal defence against a wall of incoherence.

Government lawyers urged the Court to strike out or dismiss the case entirely, arguing that it was so poorly drafted they couldn’t reasonably respond to it. Justice Katzmann agreed—and acted.

I spoke with a legal expert unaffiliated with the case, who echoed the Court’s findings, calling the applicants’ claim “incomprehensible” and questioning how such a basic failure of legal process was allowed to unfold.

“After reading the judgment, it makes you wonder how this incompetence was allowed to persist,” said the expert, who requested anonymity.

Were serious allegations made without evidence?

Justice Katzmann found that the applicants had made allegations of misfeasance in public office—an extremely serious charge—without providing adequate supporting evidence.

This was despite explicit clarification from the Australian Government Solicitor as early as November 2023 that none of the named officials had personally approved the vaccines.

In other words, the applicants’ legal team failed to meet the most basic legal threshold for such claims.

Justice Katzmann noted there was “no direct evidence” of bad faith, no expert reports, and “no particulars of the facts, matters and circumstances relied on to support the allegations.”

She also reminded the Court of the professional obligations of barristers, citing Rule 64 of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (NSW), which states:

“A barrister must not allege any matter of fact in … any court document … unless the barrister believes on reasonable grounds that the factual material already available provides a proper basis to do so.”

Katzmann was unequivocal in her conclusion: the applicants’ claim was improper and “should never have been filed by any legal practitioner.”

Court gives one last chance

While expressing “grave doubts” about whether the applicants could ever mount a viable claim, she offered one final opportunity to amend the statement.

“I have no confidence that the applicants, at least as currently advised, are able to produce a statement of claim that conforms to the Rules,” she said—strongly implying that the legal team must be replaced.

She called for a “root and branch review” of the entire case.

The government’s legal team requested that the applicants be ordered to pay $312,000 in security for legal costs. Katzmann declined, noting the case was being brought in the public interest and was funded by donations rather than for profit.

However, she cautioned that if the case were to proceed, it would come at staggering cost.

“The overall costs of the proceedings if they continue to final judgment are likely to be in the order of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars,” said Justice Katzmann.

Although she rejected the request for security, Katzmann ordered the applicants to pay 80% of the government’s legal costs for this phase of the proceedings.

Financial support for the vaccine-injured plaintiffs was spearheaded by GP Dr Melissa McCann, a staunch advocate for Australians harmed by the vaccines. She personally contributed $250,000 and helped raise an additional $558,087 through crowdfunding.

The future?

Because it comes from the Federal Court, it sends a clear message that such claims must meet the highest legal and evidentiary standards—especially when alleging wrongdoing by public officials.

Perhaps the most painful truth is this: Australia’s biggest legal challenge over Covid-19 vaccine injury has failed—at least for now.

This case attracted hundreds of thousands in donations and inspired hope among the vaccine-injured. But instead of reaching trial, it collapsed in a heap of legal missteps and poor strategy.

Public confidence in the legal system will likely take a hit. And those who say they were harmed by the vaccines are now left with more questions than answers.