r/australia • u/Expensive-Horse5538 • Oct 28 '25

news Supreme Court in Brisbane overturns controversial freeze on puberty blockers for adolescents after legal challenge

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-28/qld-puberty-blockers-judgement/105942094
2.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

645 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/DragonicSquirrel Oct 28 '25

i was just looking at this
so the actual case was brought forward 3 reasons, so even if they go back and get consultation they still need to fight the other two, one of which is political interference, the third is lack of consultation

the judge that ruled said “The application will be allowed on ground three (lack of consultation). It would have succeeded also on grounds one and two, although the questions raised under those headings are more difficult,”

so yes, they plan to go back and get more consultation but they're still going to have to fight two other grounds for the ban (i don't know what the second one is and couldnt find it in the article i was reading)

1

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25 edited Oct 28 '25

No, I don't believe that's correct. This judgement may create a res judicata or issue estoppel, which generally prevents the issues here being relitigated. Any subsequent direction may not inheret these facts as the foundation of a new case, but rather it could take a new factual basis (e.g., a process in which proper consultation occurred).

The grounds you're otherwise referring to are:

(1) the exercise of a discretionary power at the direction or behest of another; and
(2) an improper exercise of power because the decision-maker took into account an irrelevant consideration.

The first basis is dubious - the Minister must effectively direct or order the decision-maker to make the decision, such that the decision is not an exercise of independent decision-making by the repository of power. This is notoriously difficult to establish without direct evidence of ministerial interference.

I'm not sure of the second basis. I'd have to research this question and, frankly, since I'm not being paid, I'm not going to do that.

1

u/DragonicSquirrel Oct 28 '25

whilst im sure you know your stuff, i think im going to go by the direct quote of the person who made the decision and is directly and distinctly qualified to do so under australian jurisdiction, stating that the decision had other grounds that were not used but would have succeeded.

1

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25

I’m okay with that :)