Madafferi v McKirdy [2003] FCA 310

Madafferi v McKirdy [2003] FCA 310

On the proper construction of the agreement, the ACM quote was only an estimate and the applicant's liability for random daily visits was to be determined by reference to the length of time actually taken for ACM visits to the alternative place of detention, not by a minimum three-hour call-out charge or by whatever ACM charged the Department. The demand for $118,618.25 was therefore in breach of the agreement, and discretionary relief was appropriate because the Department had delayed responding to the applicant's reasonable construction dispute and should not terminate or treat breach as established before the true obligations were worked out and the applicant had an adequate...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunctions and Declarations Concerning Home Immigration Detention Costs / Final Determination of Construction Issue After Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Application granted in part; injunction and declaration made; application stood over with liberty to apply; respondents ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['immigration Detention' 'home Detention Arrangement' 'construction of Agreement' 'injunction' 'declaration' 'detention Costs']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'contract Law'] ['immigration Detention' 'home Detention Arrangement' 'construction of Agreement' 'injunction' 'declaration' 'detention Costs']

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 Injunctions and Declarations Concerning Home Immigration Detention Costs / Final Determination of Construction Issue After Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agreement required the applicant to pay costs of random ACM visits according to the actual length of time taken for those visits or according to the costs charged by ACM to the Department.' 'Whether the respondents should be restrained from demanding payment of $118,618.25 and treating non-payment by 7 March 2003 as a breach of the agreement.' 'Whether declaratory and injunctive relief should be refused on discretionary grounds because of alleged breach by the applicant or the termination power in cl 15.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the proper construction of the agreement, the ACM quote was only an estimate and the applicant's liability for random daily visits was to be determined by reference to the length of time actually taken for ACM visits to the alternative place of detention, not by a minimum three-hour call-out charge or by whatever ACM charged the Department. The demand for $118,618.25 was therefore in breach of the agreement, and discretionary relief was appropriate because the Department had delayed responding to the applicant's reasonable construction dispute and should not terminate or treat breach as established before the true obligations were worked out and the applicant had an adequate...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; injunction and declaration made; application stood over with liberty to apply; respondents ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['The respondents be restrained from demanding that the applicant pay the sum of $118,618.25 by 7 March 2003 and from treating the applicant as in breach of the agreement made on 14 March 2002 by failure to pay the sum of $118,618.25 on or before 7 March 2003.' 'Declare that the demand in the letter of 6 February...