EHW18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1350

EHW18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1350

The applicant made out a sufficient likelihood of success that the respondents owe a duty of care to ensure adequate medical treatment, and that this duty has been breached by failing to remove him from Papua New Guinea for urgent psychiatric and ophthalmic care. The balance of convenience strongly favoured granting an injunction due to the high risk of irreparable harm, including potential loss of life.

Parties
Applicant: EHW18; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application—orders Granted
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Duty of Care, Medical Treatment for Detainees, Interlocutory Relief
Administrative Law Migration Law Human Rights Injunctions Duty of Care Medical Treatment for Detainees Interlocutory Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EHW18

Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application—orders Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents owe the applicant a duty of care to provide or procure reasonable and adequate medical treatment
  2. 2 Whether a sufficient likelihood of success exists to justify the grant of an interlocutory injunction
  3. 3 Where the balance of convenience lies as between the applicant and the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant made out a sufficient likelihood of success that the respondents owe a duty of care to ensure adequate medical treatment, and that this duty has been breached by failing to remove him from Papua New Guinea for urgent psychiatric and ophthalmic care. The balance of convenience strongly favoured granting an injunction due to the high risk of irreparable harm, including potential loss of life.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • Publication of applicant's name prohibited under s 37AF(1) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
  • Respondents to ensure applicant is brought from Papua New Guinea to a location in Australia for urgent psychiatric and ophthalmic assessment and treatment, with appropriate interpreter access