The title of “Fidge v Pfizer” given to the Federal court case file number VID 510 of 2023, tells us little about those behind the case and what motivates them. Dr. Julian Fidge stepped up to be the applicant in a case “designed”, we’re told on the Maat’s Method website (archive), by retired barrister Julian Gillespie and solicitor Katie Ashby-Koppens of P. J. O’Brien and Associates.

Those names should sound familiar to anyone with an interest in cases brought to the Federal and High courts of Australia by anti-vaccination activists represented by Peter Fam of Maat’s Method. The case was the third brought by this group, in an extended campaign to discredit COVID-19 vaccines. It alleged mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are unregistered GMOs, and their manufacturers guilty of breaching legislation. The initial two cases have been covered on this blog here and here.

Background

Seeking to invalidate the approval of COVID-19 vaccines, the so-called evidence in the first two cases relied heavily on unverified adverse reactions reported to the TGA. Having made these claims, the affidavits advanced various “gotcha” scenarios using the Therapeutic Goods Act (TG Act) in which the Secretary of the Department of Health, was supposedly duty bound to remove approval of COVID-19 vaccines. Neither case was successful in establishing legal standing to prosecute proceedings.

The second case, known as The Australian Babies Case included Dr. Julian Fidge as one of the six applicants. It also advanced a “gotcha” argument against the Secretary for failing to comply with section 30C(2) of the TG Act. This was unique in that section 30C provides for Consultation with the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). They argued that the mRNA vaccines were GMOs and the Secretary had failed to give written notice to the Gene Technology Regulator, as specified in section 30C. The affidavit contended:

It appears that there has been non-compliance with a statutory condition in the TG Act. […] The plaintiffs contend that non-compliance with the statutory obligation mandated by s 30C(2) leads to the invalidity of the registration decision that followed.

That case aimed to “fix the law on standing” by arguing the applicants warranted a unique “special interest”. It was filed with the High court in December of 2022 and remitted back to the Federal court in March 2023. Announcing its discontinuation in April 2023, Peter Fam observed that they had been working simultaneously on other more promising cases that would be announced within weeks. And thus, in July 2023 came the announcement We are suing Pfizer and Moderna directly – because their shots are GMOs. They had sent letters of demand to Pfizer, Moderna, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).

Julian Fidge was no doubt a willing applicant, ready to take one for the team. His eagerness to reject government mandates and AMA requirements related to COVID-19 is well documented. He has a strong association with the Australian Medical Practitioners Society; a group that has been instrumental in opposing COVID-19 vaccines and related mandates. They also strongly support the claim mRNA vaccines are GMOs. Fidge also had previously challenged the Medical Board of Australia over conditions placed on him following an anti-vaccine post on Facebook and has been reported as the doctor who “reversed Australia’s ban on ivermectin”. Fidge has had regular contact with Julian Gillespie, Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam. We know this anti-vaccine legal team had been working on this case for months, and no doubt modified the application to suit Dr. Fidge. With that, let us turn to the application and ruling.

Fidge v Pfizer

The case was heard before the Hon Justice Helen Rofe. Justice Rofe delivered her ruling on 1 March 2024. Her reasons for judgement are comprehensive with respect to legislation and case law, and could be reasonably summarised as follows.

On 6 July 2023 Fidge filed an injunction against Pfizer and Moderna pursuant to section 147(1) of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (GTA), on the basis that:

1. The mRNA vaccines are or contain GMOs as per section 10 of the GTA.
2. To “deal with” GMOs Pfizer and Moderna (respondents) were required as per section 40 of the GTA to secure licences from the OGTR, but failed or refused to do so;
3. The respondents knew after vaccine approval that; (i) the vaccines are or contain GMOs, and (ii) the vaccines were not licensed as per s. 40 of the GTA;
4. The respondents dealt with and continue to deal with the vaccines in Australia by importing, transporting and distributing them. This constituted “vaccine dealings”;
5. The vaccine dealings without a licence are unlawful as per s. 32 and s. 33 of the GTA. This constituted “breaches” of the GTA;
6. Fidge is an “aggrieved person” as per s. 147(1) of the GTA because “he wasn’t fully informed that this new class of drugs is capable of transferring genetic material”, which Fidge considers poses significant adverse health risks.

Dr. Fidge asserted he had standing under section 147(1) of the GTA on “a number of grounds” citing his:

1. “Professional capacity” as a GP who oversaw administration of 10,000 COVID-19 vaccinations, and may be exposed to legal claims from his patients, as he was unable to advise them of the vaccine-GMO status. He has also failed to “do no harm” as he contends the vaccines are or contain GMOs, rendering them unsafe;
2. “Personal capacity” as the recipient of three Pfizer vaccines;
3. “Private capacity” due to “severe moral injury, mental harm and suffering”, due to the large number of “deaths, illnesses and injuries reported to the TGA to date”;
4. “Public capacity” as a doctor subject to a duty to preserve human life and protect the health and safety of the public. He is compelled to speak for all Australians and believes his professional codes of conduct mean he is obliged to inform patients about the vaccine-GMO status to properly provide informed consent.

Before going on it’s worth pausing to note that the first COVID-19 vaccine to arrive in Australia is Astra Zeneca; an adenovirus organism. It was registered with the OGTR in February 2021 as a genetically modified vaccine, with risk assessment approval describing it as a GMO. The AZ vaccine has not attracted attention from this group as a dangerous GMO. That allegation is reserved for mRNA vaccines, following intense focus on reports of plasmid DNA in mRNA vaccines, a number of animal studies into mRNA vaccines and pre-COVID studies of nanoparticles, all frequently cited by opponents of mRNA vaccines.

The respondents, Pfizer and Moderna, sought a summary judgement under s 31 A(2) of the Federal Court Australia Act and rule 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules on the basis that the applicant lacks standing to seek relief under s 147(1) of GT Act. Section 31 A(2) of the Federal Court Australia Act, states that, the court may give judgement for one party against another in relation to the proceeding if:

  (a) the first party is defending the proceeding; and

  (b) the court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding.

Rule 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules states that a party may apply to a court for an order that judgement be given against another party because:

(a) the applicant has no reasonable prospect of prosecuting the proceeding; or

(b) the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or

(d) the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court.

On 10 August 2023 Justice Rofe ordered that the respondents application for summary judgement be heard in October, separately from Julian Fidge’s application for injunctive relief. Rofe did not accept that Fidge had established he had standing to bring his application, and thus, allowed the respondents’ applications for summary judgement. Rofe observed that the respondents denied the vaccines were GMOs or that they had breached the GTA. In addition she observed that the position of the OGTR, “is that the vaccines are not GMOs”.

In paragraph 15 Justice Rofe writes:

The parties agreed that the question of whether Dr Fidge has standing is premised on the assumption (for the purposes of the respondents’ applications) that the vaccines are GMOs and the respondents therefore breached the Act by dealing with the vaccines. Thus, for the purposes of this summary judgment application, I do not need to determine whether the vaccines are GMOs or the resulting question of whether Pfizer and Moderna breached the Act by failing to obtain licences for the Vaccine Dealings. I have therefore disregarded any evidence filed by the parties that address whether the vaccines are GMOs.

Alas, once again the result for the Gillespie group is to be ruled as lacking standing. Dr. Julian Fidge is not a “person aggrieved”, and thus no different from any ordinary member of the public. Also, rather helpfully Justice Rofe applies case law to expand on why summary judgement under the Federal court Rules and Act, is appropriate where standing is absent. If an applicant lacks standing there are no prospects of success. Indeed, citing precedent, Rofe observes that an abuse of process arises if the applicants case is “foredoomed to fail”, as would always be the case without standing. Rofe opens paragraph 22 with:

It is clear that without standing an applicant has no prospect of success, no reasonable cause of action and the proceeding is an abuse of process.

Standing

Justice Rofe also elaborates on the importance of standing in this case by referring to precedent. Standing dictates that a person must be an appropriate party to instigate proceedings. Various terms such as “sufficient interest”, “special interest”, “real interest” or “sufficient material interest” are one consistent test. In fact, if standing was accorded to any citizen, the law may be, “abused by busybodies and cranks and persons actuated by malice“. In addition persons or groups who feel very strongly about an issue will be prepared to put another party, whose actions have not affected them, to great cost and inconvenience in mounting a defence.

Most interestingly, Justice Rofe referred to Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Inc v Secretary, Department of Health (2022) 292 FCR (AVN’s appeal) in reinforcing the lack of standing for Fidge. Justices hearing the appeal agreed that the AVN lacked standing. We can see that Justice Rofe has not missed the similarity between Fidge seeking to enforce performance of a public duty via the GTA, and the AVN seeking to force the Secretary of the Department of Health to execute duties under the TG Act. Rofe cites:

It is quite clear that an ordinary member of the public, who has no interest other than that which any member of the public has in upholding the law, has no standing to sue to prevent the violation of the public right, or to enforce the performance of a public duty.

Over paragraphs 28 to 32 Justice Rofe references the initial AVN case and their failure to demonstrate standing to further demonstrate why Julian Fidge also lacked standing. One does not find it difficult to imagine that this would not have sat well with the brains behind these three cases; Julian Gillespie, Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam.

Justice Rofe addresses the GTA extensively, and in a manner that is beyond the purpose of this post. In doing so she notes that Fidge has only alleged Pfizer and Moderna contravened the offences in s 32 and s 33 of the Act. Rofe also rejects evidence presented by Fidge claiming Pfizer’s understanding of the Act is so “narrow, myopic and restrictive” it prevents anyone from having standing to challenge breaches of the GTA. Further, the GTA deals with GMOs that present a biosafety risk to people or the environment and not “the quality, efficacy and safety of GMO vaccines for administration to humans”. More so, the applicant failed to establish he is “any other aggrieved person” within the meaning of s 147(1) of the Act. Without standing Fidge, ” ‘has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding’ within the meaning of s 31A(2)(b) of the FCA Act and r 26.01(1)(a) of the Rules”.

In her conclusion Rofe writes that instead of making an application under the “relevant statute that regulates vaccines”; the TG Act (as the AVN had done), Fidge “seeks an injunction under an act that only tangentially deals with GMO vaccines”. In what one imagines may well infuriate the legal brains who strategised this case in the wake of AVN, Rofe sensibly observes:

That strategic decision may be understandable in light of the decisions in AVN and AVN FC but was ultimately misguided.

Dr. Julian Fidge’s application for injunctive relief under the GTA was summarily dismissed. On 22 March 2024, Fidge filed with the Federal court for leave to appeal.

Is Justice Rofe corrupt?

Within a day of the ruling came the allegation, courtesy of Julian Gillespie, that Justice Rofe had failed to disclose prior activity as a barrister, representing Pfizer in patent disputes. There are five such instances that occurred between 2003 and 2006. There is no evidence Justice Rofe was unable to act impartially or did not act impartially. Nonetheless, PJ O’Brien & Associates and Ashby-Koppens have not only examined her career, but most of her life, her extended family and affiliates, to allege nefarious intention on her part motivated by “Big Pharmaceutical interests, both domestic and international”. They have filed a constitutional complaint with the Chief Justice of the Federal court and also called on the Australian Parliament to investigate allegations of misbehaviour, which if proven may result in her removal from the bench.

In the next post we will look into the complaint, the scope of its contention and ask not only if the allegation is justified, but even feasible.