A rural NSW Principal - fired over COVID-19 vaccination while on approved leave - can now challenge that dismissal in court.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled on November 11, 2026, that the Principal could pursue judicial review of his termination, despite the standard three-month filing deadline having expired more than four years ago.
The case, Mason v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1429, turns on a set of facts that would stop most school leaders in their tracks.
The timeline that trapped a career
The Principal joined the NSW Teaching Service in about 1990 and ran a small rural public school west of Wauchope from 2007. In October 2020, a separate misconduct investigation was launched into his use of the school's payment card, following concerns raised by a staff member. He was directed off-site and never returned to his school.
By the time the NSW government's Public Health (COVID-19 Vaccination of Education and Care Workers) Order 2021 came into force, the Principal had not been working in a school environment for a considerable period. His application for extended leave from November 8, 2021 through to July 2022 was approved.
He was not vaccinated. In his response to the Department's formal allegations, quoted in the judgment, he wrote that had he still been at school, he "probably would have been to get vaccinated long ago." But he was on leave, at home, and not engaging with anyone in the education system.
A Department investigator sent him a formal allegation of vaccine non-compliance on November 24, 2021. He responded on December 5. Four days later, a senior Department official found he had engaged in misconduct, suspended him without pay, and flagged dismissal as the proposed action.
The Principal sent a detailed submission on December 26, 2021, arguing that he posed no risk to anyone while on leave and that the Department could simply require compliance before he returned. On January 12, 2022, he was dismissed. The dismissal letter, the court observed, was strikingly brief. It acknowledged his response had been "read and considered" but provided no reasoning.
Justice Sirtes noted that the decision-maker had simply reaffirmed the earlier preliminary decision "without saying more."
Caught between two investigations
What made this case unusual was the collision of two parallel processes. The misconduct investigation that started in 2020 ground on for more than five years, while the Principal sat at home, dismissed, waiting.
When the vaccine mandate was rescinded in mid-2022, the Department wrote to dismissed teachers about a path back. But the Principal's letter came with a condition: he could not return while any other conduct issue was being managed. The misconduct investigation was exactly such an issue.
The Principal understood this to mean his dismissal would not be reversed until the separate investigation wrapped up. He did not expect that to take another three and a half years.
That investigation eventually concluded on January 27, 2026. Some allegations were sustained, some were not. The Principal's name was placed on the Department's "not to be employed" list, with reconsideration possible after two years. He filed his initial claim about three months later, adding the judicial review elements in July 2026.
Why the court said yes
The Department argued that the Principal was years too late. Under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), challenges to government decisions must ordinarily be brought within three months.
The Principal's lawyers tried to argue the deadline did not apply at all because his broader wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claims had their own six-year window. The court rejected that. Justice Sirtes held the three-month rule applied to the judicial review claims on their own terms, regardless of what other claims sat alongside them.
That left the Principal needing the court to exercise its discretion. The court did.
Justice Sirtes accepted the Principal's explanation for the delay. The court found it was reasonable for someone whose career was already under a serious cloud to hold off on expensive litigation to restore a job he might lose anyway for a different reason. The Department's own letter - conditioning his return on the resolution of the misconduct investigation - supplied what the court called an "objective connection" between the two processes.
The court also found the Principal had a genuine stake in the judicial review. Even though he was not seeking to go back to his school, the court held there was a real risk his wrongful dismissal claim would fail without a formal order setting aside the termination decision. In short, without judicial review, the dismissal would stand as a valid exercise of statutory power - and damages for wrongful dismissal would be off the table.
The court assessed his case as "fairly arguable" and specifically noted it was "not weak." Arguments about whether the dismissal was disproportionate, whether the decision-maker genuinely considered the Principal's leave status, and whether the available options under the Teaching Service Act 1980 (NSW) were properly understood all remain open.
The Department flagged the current Principal of the school - appointed through a merit selection process in July 2022 - as a concern. The court gave this little weight. The former Principal was seeking compensation, not reinstatement. In 2024, his wife suffered a medical emergency and he became her full-time carer. There was no indication he intended or was able to return.
For school leaders and education departments managing disciplinary processes - whether under emergency health orders or otherwise - this case is a pointed reminder that a dismissal letter with no reasoning can leave the door open to legal challenge years down the track.
The proceedings now advance to a final hearing on the merits. No court has made any finding on whether the termination was unlawful. The orders made on November 11, 2026, were procedural - extending the filing deadline, granting leave to amend the claim, and allowing the matter to continue.