Mr Gerner's barrister,Bret Walker,SC,had argued that the Constitution gave Australians freedom of movement that the lockdown measures had trampled on.

“The text and structure of the Constitution gives rise to the Constitutional implication that the people in and of Australia have freedom of movement within the states in which they reside and throughout the federal unions,” Mr Walker told the court.

Billionaire businessman and horse racing identity Jonathan Munz was financing the challenge,a source close to the case previously confirmed toThe Age,and was expected to pour more than $1 million into the case.

MrGerner released a statement after the court's decision,saying that Australia should establish a Bill of Rights,similar to the United States,to enshrine freedoms like intra-state travel into law. He called on the federal government to intervene in Victoria to end the restrictions.

"The High Court has identified a major gap in the basic laws of our democracy that allows a government,once it is elected,to lock down its citizens and deprive them of the liberties that people in a civilised society would reasonably expect,"he said.

"It shows that our basic freedoms need to be protected in a Bill of Rights which sets out those basic rights and freedoms,subject of course to reasonable and proportionate limitation by the government in the case of an emergency or similar situation."

Luke Beck,an associate professor at Monash University's faculty of law and a constitutional law expert,said the fact that the Justices came to the conclusion so quickly suggests they were not impressed by the arguments mounted by Mr Gerner's legal team.

"The High Court thought the case was basically lacking in merit entirely. They didn’t even need to hear from the state government’s lawyers,"Dr Beck said.

"Gerner and his legal team were asking the court to create or identify a new implied constitutional freedom,which meant this had the potential to be a really big case with broad impacts,but the High Court said no,we’re not doing that."

The challenge was among a barrage of lawsuits faced by the Victorian government over its response to the pandemic. Up to 11 separate actions have been launched related to COVID-19 losses,eight of which are being pursued against the Andrews government.

The government made a similar argument,that the claim should fail because of no ongoing utility,when aspiring Liberal Party MP Michelle Loeilo challenged the curfew policy in the Victorian Supreme Court last month.

On Monday,Supreme Court judge Tim Ginnane dismissed Ms Loielo’s case,finding the government did not overstep its authority in extending the curfew policy alongside a suite other measures,to combat the spread of COVID-19 through the community.

Justice Ginnane said that even though the curfew was a"major restriction of the rights and liberties of the people of Victoria",it was ultimately a proportionate response and did not violate the human rights of Victorians in the process.

With Heather McNeill and Tammy Mills