Katzmann strikes out Mandatory Jab case 3rd Statement of Claim BUT the full ruling leaves it Open for a new one!
In what might be a record judgement delivery, under 2 minutes, the 3rd Statement of Claim was thrown out with Plaintiffs ordered to pay 80% of Respondents Interlocutory Costs
I fired off this post after visiting the Federal Court website where I found only this 2-page Order handed down at 9.30 am on 10 April 2025.
But there is good news below in a subsequent upload!
and
For new subscribers, the case details can be found here:
Justice Katzmann with special interest in Brain Damage delivers her Mandatory Jab judgement 9.30 am 10 April 2025
You can follow the Federal Court of Australia on X.
Just over 50 people tuned in, and latecomers were asking on X why the link to the live proceedings using Microsoft Team was not working.
It was simply terminated without a view of anyone attending in person.
Better News
Thanks to Dr Melissa McCann and Rado Faletič who went to the court documents and found a 3MB file, also available as webpage view.1
Their sharp eyes waded through to Paragraph 135 where Justice Katzmann says:
135 In all the circumstances, I am disposed not to grant the applicants leave to replead, at least not without being satisfied that they can craft an intelligible pleading which conforms to the Rules.
Although I have grave doubts about whether the applicants can mount a reasonably arguable case, the difficulty in seeing the wood for the trees in the current pleading means that I cannot rule out the possibility that there is such a case at least against one of the respondents.
Also, although the 3FASOC is the fifth iteration of the applicants’ pleading, this is the only time the Court has been troubled by it.
Consequently, and notwithstanding my misgivings, I have decided to give the applicants one further opportunity to fix their pleading.
It seems to me that that will require fresh eyes and a fresh start in a “root and branch review”, as Lee J urged the parties to do in the Hendra class action: see Abbott at [21]. This means it is necessary to deal with the respondents’ application for security for costs.
Update, please read the comments in the great article by Alison Bevege.2
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0339
The thing about treason is you cannot just buy the politicians, you need to be able to control the law.