Vaccine Mandate Case sent to Privy Council for final decision  

The Court of Appeal on Thursday granted conditional leave for the “Vaccine Mandate Case” to be sent to the London-based Privy Council, St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ (SVG) highest court, for final determination.

The legal challenge arose from the decision of the Ralph Gonsalves Unity Labour Party (ULP) government in November 2021 to deem public sector workers who did not take a COVID-19 vaccine — as the government had ordered — to have abandoned their jobs.

The Public Service Union, St. Vincent and the Grenadines Teachers’ Union and the Police Welfare sponsored that lawsuit, in which the High Court judge Justice Esco Henry ruled in favour of the public servants in March 2023.

However, in a 2-1 decision in February 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, resulting in the public sector workers applying for permission to have the Privy Council make a final determination.

The government’s legal team did not make any oral arguments as the Court of Appeal considered the application during a virtual sitting in Kingstown on Thursday.

“We do not intend to add any further submissions in relation to our position. We have put some issues for the court to consider,” Anthony Astaphan, a Dominican senior counsel who heads the government’s legal team, told the court.

“We leave it entirely to the court to decide whether to grant leave or not, but we are not going to say anything further,” he said.  

Meanwhile, Cara Shillingford, a Dominican lawyer who is lead counsel for the public sector workers, submitted that the matter was one in which the workers should be granted permission to apply to the Privy Council, as of right.

She said the proposed grounds of appeal include many constitutional grounds, highlighting that the case concerns property rights and pension rights.

Shillingford said that based on Section 99 of the Constitution of SVG, the public sector workers are entitled to appeal to the Privy Council as the matter involves a question of interpretation of the Constitution.

The lawyer highlighted that in addition to the issue of pension and property rights, a very important part of the decision of the High Court relates to the role of the Public Service Commission and the ability of the commission to act independently to make its own regulations, in keeping with Section 77 of the Constitution.

She noted that Justice Henry had found that the vaccine mandate breached section 77 of the Constitution.

“And that is, of course, a matter of tremendous public interest, and it is a very vital constitutional law question or issue that needs to be resolved finally,” Shillingford said.

Responding to a question from the three-judge panel, Shillingford said there could be no dispute that the value of the affected workers’ pension was more than $1,500.

“… but I suppose I should leave that to my learned friends to answer,” she said even as the lawyers for the government remained silent.

The court noted that this matter was not addressed in the government’s submission.  

“It was not addressed. So, it’s not something that is in dispute,” Shillingford said, adding that she could point the court to affidavit evidence where the public sector workers gave certain figures as to their salaries.

“… the evidence is there that the 270 applicants, their salaries were far in excess of the 1,500, and it is a given, I would think, that their pension rights, which are affected, would be in excess of 1,500. I do not believe that is something that can be disputed,” Shillingford said.

 The panel was made up of its president, Justice of Appeal Trevor Ward and acting Justices of Appeal, Peter Foster and Reginald Armour.

Karen Duncan, Cerepha Harper-Joseph, Franeek Prince, and Grahame Bollers also appeared on behalf of the government.
The other members of the public servants’ legal team were Jomo Thomas and Shirlan “Zita” Barnwell.