Court ruling in favour of Gov’t ‘disappointing’ – lawyers on COVID-19 vaccine madate case

The legal team representing the unions who brought a case against government for the dismissal of workers who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine, have described as disappointing the rulling given by The Court of Appeal today.

The Court of Appeal issued a 2:1 majority decision allowing the Government’s appeal in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ vaccine case. This means esssentially that government has ‘won’ their appeal against the first ruling which was handed down by then High Court judge Justice Esco Henry back in March 13, 2023.

At the time, Henry ruled that the rules introduced by the Government in 2021 which made it mandatory for some public servants to take a COVID-19 jab in order to keep their jobs, are “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, disproportionate and tainted by procedural impropriety”.

Her ruling also stated that she deemed “illegal and disproportionate”, Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Public Health (Public Bodies Special Measures) Rules 2021 (SR&O No 28), which said that an employee who, without reasonable excuse does not take the jab must not enter the workplace and will be considered to be absent from duty without leave.

In the judgement, Justice of Appeal Eddy Ventose  and Paul Webster were in the majority two votes while Justice of Appeal Gerhard Wallbank was in the minority one vote.

In a press release dated February 12, 2025, the claimants said :

“A powerful dissent was written by Justice Wallbank, who maintained that the Government’s decision to impose a vaccine mandate on certain public officers was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The Prime Minister and Minister of Health changed the definition of ‘abandonment’ when they made regulations which prohibited unvaccinated persons from entering the workplace and which deemed them to have abandonedtheir jobs thus affecting their pension rights.

The legal team for the dismissed workers is disappointed in the majority decision delivered by Justices of Appeal Ventose and Webster. We believe that Justice Wallbank was correct in his dissent and that the High Court decision issued by Justice Henry was strongly grounded in a correct interpretation of the law.

We will read and study the judgment to gain a better appreciation of all of the views expressed in the decision. Thereafter, we will discuss with our clients all available options, including an appeal to the Privy Council, and will take the necessary action.”