In the case of a schoolboy on lockdown for about a month during the COVID-19 crisis, a ruling will be made next Thursday on a bid to introduce the Health Services Authority as an interested party.
Justice Jalil Asif said on Friday after hearing arguments in the case, which involved a then 8-year-old who contracted the coronavirus and his mother, that he would reserve judgment.
He added, “I’m not going to make a judgment now because I have to think through some of the things that have been put before me.”
Rupert Wheeler, who appeared for the family, said, “There are certain factual issues the petition raises that it could be helpful to the court to have some explanation of.
“What the court is looking at here is whether it’s in the interests of justice to allow the Health Services Authority to join as an interested party.”
He emphasised that “the reality is we are not making an allegation” against the HSA and that it did not have to be present.
Wheeler was speaking after he asked for a string of minor amendments to the petition submitted in August last year, as well as for the removal of the HSA as a respondent, but to maintain involvement as an interested party.
The legal team stressed all it wanted to do was focus on “the real question in controversy between the parties to the proceedings”.
The family’s representative added that they did not want to introduce new causes of actions, but provide information that reflected the matters expert witnesses would give testimony on.
But Michael Wingrave, who appeared for the government side, said, “It’s a question of whether the HSA has an interest and can make a contribution.”
He added that the number of issues raised by Wheeler demonstrated “how much the HSA is involved, no matter how much he may say they are not”.
A petition was filed with the Grand Court two years ago that claimed the boy was forced to isolate for COVID-19 long after he was likely to have ceased to be contagious.
The case, originally filed against the attorney general, the health ministry and the HSA, questions the requirement for a clear PCR test as a condition of release from quarantine.
PCR tests can detect the presence of the coronavirus for up to 90 days after infection and should not have been considered a reliable measure of infectiousness, the petition claimed.
The child was released from lockdown in February 2022 after Wheeler’s law firm filed an injunction.
The family said the enforced quarantine had affected the boy’s physical and mental state and that, although government had the right to breach individual rights in a health crisis, the measures taken had to be rational and proportionate.
His mother said he had missed almost a month of school, including his sports day and multiple exams and had also spent his birthday in effect under house arrest, despite having two clear lateral flow test results.
She added she had appealed to public health authorities without success before she decided to push ahead with legal action.
Related Videos
Who are paying the legal fees for this family? What is the point of their case?
It’s certainly arguable that the government might have been over cautious. But those were worrying times.
This young man can’t get back their missed sports day, hopefully he could take his exams later.
What is the measure of any loss?