You may be a group member if:during the curfew period from 2 to 16 August 2020, you ordinarily resided in Greater Melbourne and were living at that place of residence.Whether a person ultimately falls within the group definition is governed by the terms approved by the Court.

For the purposes of the proceeding, Greater Melbourne refers to the municipal districts identified in the applicable Area Directions, being:Banyule, Bayside, Boroondara, Brimbank, Cardinia, Casey, Darebin, Frankston, Glen Eira, Greater Dandenong, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Kingston, Knox, Manningham, Maribyrnong, Maroondah, Melbourne, Melton, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland (Merri-bek), Mornington Peninsula, Nillumbik, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse, Whittlesea, Wyndham, Yarra and Yarra Ranges.

The current group definition is limited to persons who ordinarily resided in Greater Melbourne and were living at their ordinary place of residence during the curfew period.Different factual situations may arise. Eligibility may ultimately depend on the precise circumstances and any orders made by the Court.

Very likely yes.  If compensation is ultimately awarded or a settlement is approved, group members will very likely be required to provide information, confirming that they ordinarily resided in Greater Melbourne during the curfew period, and were living at that residence at the time.

No.You do not need to register to remain a group member.Registration is simply a way to receive updates about the proceeding.If the Court later directs that group members be given an opportunity to opt out of the proceeding, information about that process will be published on this website and provided to registered persons.

The proceeding raises a number of common issues that will be determined for all group members.In broad terms, the plaintiff alleges that:the statutory power used to impose the curfew was not exercised in the manner required by law;the authorised officer did not independently exercise the statutory discretion conferred upon him;the decision to impose the curfew was made pursuant to the direction, influence or effective control of others;the authorised officer did not form the state of satisfaction required by law before imposing the curfew;the material available did not permit a lawful conclusion that the curfew was reasonably necessary to reduce a serious risk to public health;the curfew therefore did not provide lawful authority for the confinement imposed during curfew hours;persons subject to the curfew were falsely imprisoned; andgroup members are entitled to damages.The Court has not yet determined any of these issues.

The plaintiff alleges not only that the curfew was imposed, but that it was imposed without the statutory decision-making process required by law.Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that the authorised officer did not have before him any identified assessment, recommendation or analysis directed to the necessity of a curfew, nor any identified material capable of supporting the consideration required before such a measure could lawfully be imposed.Those allegations are disputed and remain to be determined by the Court.

Yes. Various proceedings have been commenced concerning different COVID-19 measures introduced during the pandemic. This proceeding concerns only the curfew imposed across Greater Melbourne between 2 August 2020 and 16 August 2020.The proceeding is not related to any other existing class action and is being conducted independently.

Yes.In Loielo v Giles, the Supreme Court considered a challenge relating to the continuation and renewal of the curfew following its original introduction.The present proceeding concerns the original decision to impose the curfew on 2 August 2020 and includes a claim for damages arising from that decision.The Court will determine this proceeding on its own evidence, facts and legal issues.

No amount of compensation has been determined. The proceeding seeks damages on behalf of the plaintiff and group members. Any entitlement to compensation, and the amount of any compensation, will depend on future orders of the Court or any settlement approved by the Court.

Key documents concerning the decision to impose the curfew were not publicly available in 2020.In 2025, correspondence between the authorised officer responsible for the Directions and the Chief Health Officer became available through Freedom of Information processes.The plaintiff alleges that this correspondence provides important insight into the decision-making process that led to the curfew.The Court has not yet determined those allegations.