New Zealand Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Defence Force COVID Mandate

Four defence force members have lost their legal battle to have a vaccination mandate imposed on them in 2021 declared unlawful.

A New Zealand Defence Force medic with a patient. Courtesy of the NZDF

A landmark legal challenge by four New Zealand Defence Force personnel over the government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate has ended with the Supreme Court ruling in favour of the mandate—affirming the military’s right to prioritise operational readiness over individual objections.

The case centred on a Temporary Defence Force Order (TDFO) which classified unvaccinated personnel as “ineffectual” and made them subject to dismissal or reassignment.

The four challengers—whose identities remain suppressed—included an army corporal, a former lieutenant colonel, an Air Force squadron leader, and a former Navy lieutenant commander. Two had refused the primary COVID-19 vaccination, while the other two had refused booster doses.

The court’s decision ends a multi-year legal saga and underscores the tension between individual rights and institutional responsibilities in times of public health crisis.

Origins of the Mandate

The issue first arose in March 2021, during the pandemic, when the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) applied a 2009 Defence Force Order—requiring personnel to meet individual readiness standards, including vaccinations—to COVID-19.

The mandate was reinforced through ministerial orders covering personnel at Managed Isolation and Quarantine facilities and later extended across the entire force.

Although that broader application was struck down in a separate High Court ruling, the CDF responded by issuing a Temporary Defence Force Order under internal NZDF authority, restricting unvaccinated members’ access to camps, bases, and deployments, and ultimately discharging 22 of 39 unvaccinated personnel.

Captain Sandy Mitchell, Southern Health Support Squadron Medical Officer, assists a patient during a relief effort following Cyclone Gabrielle. Courtesy of the NZDF

Legal Battle Through the Courts

The four personnel argued the mandate violated their rights under New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act, specifically the right to refuse medical treatment and to manifest religion and belief.

They first sought judicial review in the High Court, which dismissed their claims, so they took it to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld their application, ordering a review of the TDFO, and preventing any dismissals.

However, it also granted the NZDF the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, which it did.

In its final ruling, released on April 11, the Supreme Court observed that the mandate fell within legal authority granted to military leadership under the Armed Forces Discipline Act.

It highlighted the opinion of Colonel Charmaine Tate, the Surgeon General and Director of Defence Health, and Dr Ian Town, Chief Science Advisor at the Ministry of Health—both of whom affirm the serious health risks COVID-19 posed to operational units.

The Court ruled that the CDF had sufficient medical grounds to impose the order and that the policy was “within the range of reasonably available responses” to concerns about operational effectiveness and discipline.

NZDF personnel taking part in the final official act of remembrance for the late Queen Elizabeth II during the State Memorial Service in Wellington. Courtesy of the NZDF

A Precedent for Future Crises?

While the ruling does not resolve whether the four individuals were personally treated fairly, the court noted the abstract nature of their claims—since they challenged the TDFO as a whole, not specific dismissals.

“It is possible that decisions to discharge individual members following reviews initiated by the TDFO and related instruments were unjustified, but we have not been called upon to decide that,” the ruling stated.

The Court allowed the NZDF’s appeal and ordered the four members who had brought the case to pay NZDF’s costs of $30,000.