Federal Court denies leave to UM staff challenging compulsory Covid-19 vaccination, affirming lower court rulings.
PUTRAJAYA: A group of Universiti Malaya (UM) staff failed to obtain Federal Court leave to appeal the dismissal of their challenge against the government’s circular requiring compulsory Covid-19 vaccination.
A three-judge panel comprising Justices Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang, Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh and Datuk Azmi Ariffin dismissed the group’s application after ruling that they failed to meet the threshold requirement under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
Justice Rhodzariah ordered the applicants to pay RM25,000 in costs each to the government and UM registrar.
On Oct 27, 2021, the UM staff as well as several teachers from different government schools filed their judicial review application against six respondents, namely the education minister, education director-general, Public Service Department (PSD) director-general, the health minister, health director-general and Malaysian government.
They sought to quash the circular issued by the Public Service director-general on Oct 18, 2021, which made Covid-19 vaccination compulsory for all public service employees and extended the mandate to cover staff of statutory bodies and local authorities.
The group was initially granted leave by the High Court in May 2022 to commence a judicial review challenging the circular.
However, on Dec 14, 2023, after hearing the merits of the case, the High Court dismissed the application, ruling that the compulsory vaccination directive was lawful, reasonable and rational.
Their appeal was later dismissed by the Court of Appeal on Jan 7 this year. Subsequently, the UM staff proceeded to file an application for leave to appeal the decision to the Federal Court, while the teachers did not pursue the matter further.
During the proceedings, the applicants’ lawyer, Adrian Yeow Way Thiam, urged the court to grant leave for five questions of law to be determined by the Federal Court.
However, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin argued that the proposed questions had no direct bearing on the main remedies sought by the applicants in their judicial review.
Furthermore, lawyer Raja Eileen Soraya Raja Aman, representing the UM registrar, contended that the proposed questions were not novel and did not raise any new points of law.
