EUB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1432

EUB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1432

The evidence disclosed a serious question to be tried about alleged breaches of duty of care and showed an immediate and real risk to the applicant's life and health, including risks from caustic ingestion and severe psychiatric illness. The balance of convenience favoured urgent evacuation to Australia rather than a 24 hour adjournment, because the Court could not sit by and hope the risks would not eventuate, and difficulties arising from Nauruan approvals did not justify withholding orders needed to preserve the applicant's life and wellbeing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction Requiring Urgent Medical Treatment and Transfer From Nauru to Australia / Interlocutory Application; Ex Tempore Reasons Revised
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted; respondents' adjournment application not granted.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'duty of Care' 'urgent Medical Treatment' 'regional Processing on Nauru' 'suppression Order' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'duty of Care' 'urgent Medical Treatment' 'regional Processing on Nauru' 'suppression Order' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction Requiring Urgent Medical Treatment and Transfer From Nauru to Australia / Interlocutory Application; Ex Tempore Reasons Revised

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' adjournment application for 24 hours should be granted or whether interlocutory orders sought by the applicant should be made." "Whether there was a serious question to be tried concerning the respondents' alleged breaches of an alleged duty of care to the applicant." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured requiring the respondents to transfer the applicant to Australia for urgent medical and psychiatric treatment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence disclosed a serious question to be tried about alleged breaches of duty of care and showed an immediate and real risk to the applicant's life and health, including risks from caustic ingestion and severe psychiatric illness. The balance of convenience favoured urgent evacuation to Australia rather than a 24 hour adjournment, because the Court could not sit by and hope the risks would not eventuate, and difficulties arising from Nauruan approvals did not justify withholding orders needed to preserve the applicant's life and wellbeing.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted; respondents' adjournment application not granted.

Orders

  • ['On the grounds set out at s 37AG(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that publication of any name of the applicant and her country of origin be prohibited under s 37AF of the Federal Court Act.' "The respondents ensure that EUB18 is transferred as soon as possible but in any event before...