Reserved decision — COVID-19 — global pandemic — vaccination requirements — strike-out — discrimination — "employee" — abuse of process — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 36, 92 & 95 — Human Rights Act 1993, s 21 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 17, 18(1) & 27 — Health Act 1956, s 92I — COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 — District Courts Act 2016, s 74 — Employment Relationships Act 2000, s 6 — Incorporated Societies Act 1908 — COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Order 2021, r 81(2) — COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 — District Court Rules 2014, r 15.1 — Attorney-General v Prince & Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262 — Couch v Attorney-General [2008] 3 NZLR 725 — Burchell v Singh [2014] NZHC 1353 — Winther v Housing New Zealand [2011] 1 NZLR 825 — Reihana v Foran [2022] NZHC 2425 — Finnigan v New Zealand Rugby Football Union Inc [1985] 2 NZLR 159 — Chand v Chand [2022] NZHC 303. The plaintiff issued proceedings against three defendants. The first defendant tennis club had revoked the plaintiff's membership, after she refused to follow its requirement to show a vaccine pass before entering the clubhouse. The plaintiff sought $30,000 in compensation, arguing that the first defendant had discriminated against her and that the other two defendants supported this discrimination. Among other things, she submitted that the first defendant had breached its Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) obligations to provide access to a toilet, and that it had required her to submit to compulsory medical treatment. All three defendants sought strike-out of the proceedings, submitting that the plaintiff's claims contained no reasonable cause of action and were an abuse of process. The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear claims of unlawful discrimination or breaches of the NZ Bill of Rights Act. Such claims should be brought to the Human Rights Tribunal. The sections of the HSWA that the plaintiff cited were inapplicable. The defendants owed the plaintiff no duty of care in tort. To the extent that the plaintiff sought a judicial review of the defendants' actions, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to carry out such a review. The Court found that the plaintiff had no reasonably arguable causes of action against any of the three defendants, and that to allow the claims to continue against the second and third defendants would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The claims were struck out, and the Court invited the defendants to seek costs against the plaintiff. Judgment Date: 21 February 2023