Mrs Smit is currently listed as the primary applicant in the case, but her lawyer, Elizabeth Rusiti, said an application would be filed to replace the Victorian woman with NSW-based social media influencer Cienna Knowles.
Ms Knowles, who has about 40,000 followers on Instagram and 11,000 followers on TikTok, has written on social media that she was hospitalized last month with blood clots. She blamed the Pfizer vaccine. NSW Health Department has not confirmed any link.
Legal documents released to Aging show that the plaintiffs allege that various public health orders were unconstitutional, in addition to the legal power conferred on federal and state governments, and that the circumstances in which some Australians were vaccinated under mandated policies constituted an abuse.
The information also says that the registration of a person’s vaccination status in Victoria is contrary to the Fair Work Act 2009 and calls on the Prime Minister to apologize for alleged misleading behavior.
The plaintiffs, which also include an NSW hairdresser and electrical contractor from Melbourne, are claiming unspecified damages.
Dr. Luke Beck, an associate professor at Monash University’s Faculty of Law and Constitutional Law, said he did not believe the case was a common or “reasonable” legal challenge to government decision-making.
“The courts have the power to control the legality of government decision-making and the validity of public health orders,” he said. “Many of the allegations are conspiratorial and pseudo-legal nonsense.”
He also said that some of the arguments, such as the claim that the vaccine requirements were unconstitutional, had already been rejected by the courts.
Last year, prominent hospitality figure Julian Gerner asked the High Court to review the legality of the lockdown and hired top silks Bret Walker, SC, and Michael Wyles, QC, to argue for the constitutional challenge in Australia. His case was thrown out of the high court.
Wednesday’s federal court hearing took place just hours before Mrs Smit was also due to go to Melbourne Magistrates Court on two charges of encouraging others to break the Chief Health Officer’s instructions and three cases of non-compliance with a Chief Health Officer’s directive.
Ms. Smit appeared for the latter online hearing, where her bail conditions were extended and the case was adjourned until February 2 for a binding mention.
Ms. Smit was initially granted bail in early September, but did not leave prison after refusing to give her consent to the attached conditions, which included a curfew at 1 p.m. mask unless she had medical exemption.
After refusing to abide by the terms, Ms. Smit spent 22 days in jail before Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Hollingworth changed her bail conditions and removed several original terms that police had requested.
She is accused of inciting people via social media by encouraging them to take part in anti-lockdown protests in Melbourne in August, including those in which police were injured.
Both cases are due to return to court in 2022.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to today’s most important and interesting stories, analyzes and insights. sign up here.