Background
This class action concerns Queensland Police Service employees mandated to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Three sub-groups of claimants challenge the lawfulness of the Commissioner’s COVID-19 Directions: those who refused and faced discipline; those coerced into vaccination; and those refused medical exemptions. The case proceeded to a procedural hearing on the defendants’ application for a “soft class closure order”—a registration requirement allowing group members to opt in to secure settlement benefits.
At an earlier procedural decision, the parties agreed on opt-out notice procedures but disputed whether a registration mechanism should be included. The defendants filed the present application seeking an order requiring group members to register before any mediation or settlement, claiming this would facilitate accurate member count, settlement negotiations, and liability estimation. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the proceedings were too early-stage for such requirements.
The Court’s Holding
Williams J examined whether it was appropriate to make a soft class closure order at that stage of proceedings, applying principles established by the High Court in Lendlease Corporation Limited v Pallas (2025) 99 ALJR 834. The court identified relevant considerations: whether registration serves group members’ interests, the proceedings’ advancement, party attitudes, case complexity, notice adequacy, and critically, whether registration would improve settlement prospects.
The court found the proceedings remained at a relatively early stage: pleadings were not fully closed, documents had not been requested, no evidence had been served on quantum, and no discovery was substantially complete. The plaintiffs opposed the order and contended definitive damage criteria could be established through sworn evidence and employment records without requiring premature registration. The court emphasized that unregistered group members need not be excluded from settlements and that additional notices would likely be necessary regardless, diminishing the registration mechanism’s practical benefit at this juncture.
Key Takeaways
- Soft class closure orders requiring registration are discretionary and fact-dependent; no automatic right exists to impose them early in proceedings.
- Courts must balance competing interests—defendants’ interest in estimating liability and group members’ interest in fair participation—case-by-case, not assume all interests align.
- Early registration is more justified when proceedings are substantially advanced (pleadings closed, discovery complete, evidence served) and settlement appears imminent.
- Party opposition to registration carries weight; courts should not impose registration solely because one party asserts unwillingness to negotiate without it.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies judicial discretion in managing class action procedures and resists allowing defendants to impose administrative barriers to settlement participation in early-stage proceedings. Australian courts recognize that soft closure orders serve legitimate functions—enabling defendants to quantify exposure and encouraging member participation—but require sufficient procedural advancement before imposing them. Premature registration requirements risk excluding members and complicating settlement approval if unregistered members later seek participation.
The judgment reinforces that civil procedure must remain proportionate and just. Particularly in vaccine-injury class actions and employment disputes, courts will scrutinize whether registration requirements genuinely facilitate settlement or primarily advantage defendants by limiting the pool of claimants entitled to benefit.