Federal court of australia



Yüklə 301,77 Kb.
səhifə1/17
tarix15.08.2018
ölçüsü301,77 Kb.
#62546
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   17


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Plaintiff S99/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 483


File number:

VID 305 of 2016







Judge:

BROMBERG J







Date of judgment:

6 May 2016







Legislation:

Constitution, s 61

Criminal Code Act 1974 (PNG), ss 225, 226, 280, 312

Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2001 (Cth)

Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2001 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 23, 37AF

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 44

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5AA, 14, 189, 197AB, 198AA, 198AB, 198AD, 198AE, 198AHA, 198B, 474, 476A, 484, 486A, Div 8 Pt 2 Subdiv B,

Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth)

Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2001 (Cth)

Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2001 (Cth)

Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth)







Cases cited:

"R" v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commissioner (2016) 90 ALJR 433

AB v Western Australia (2011) 244 CLR 390

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564

Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328

Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562

Amaca Pty Ltd v Frost (2006) 67 NSWLR 635

Amaca Pty Ltd v the State of New South Wales (2004) 132 LGERA 309

Annuity and Rent Charge (1744) 1 Eq Ca Abr 31; 21 ER 851

Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 2) (2012) 293 ALR 272

Beyazkilinc v Manager, Baxter Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (2006) 155 FCR 465

BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council (2007) 162 FCR 234

Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2007) 228 CLR 651

Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512

Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corporation Strata Plan No 61288 (2014) 254 CLR 185

Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649

Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004

Carey v Freehills (2013) 303 ALR 445

City of Kamloops v Nielsen (1984) 10 DLR (4th) 641

Clay v Clay (2001) 202 CLR 410

Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390

Countess of Bective v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1932) 47 CLR 417

Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1

Cubillo v Commonwealth (2001) 112 FCR 455

Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] AC 458

D'Orta Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1

Dyno Wesfarmers Ltd v Knuckey [2003] NSWCA 375

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Unit Trend Services Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 523

Fernando v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 165 FCR 471

Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Limited v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540

Graigola Merthyr Company, Limited v Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Swansea [1928] Ch 235

Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465

Hoffmann v Boland [2013] NSWCA 158

Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 1043

Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41

Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna (2014) 253 CLR 270

Hunter Area Health Service v Presland (2005) 63 NSWLR 22

Hurst v State of Queensland (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 151

Jackson v Spittall (1870) LR 5 CP 542

John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503

Kent v Griffiths [2001] 1 QB 36

L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981) 150 CLR 225

M(K) v M(H) (1992) 96 DLR (4th) 289

Makawe Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2009] NSWCA 412

Mastipour v Secretary, Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 952

Mercer v Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways (New South Wales) (1936) 56 CLR 580

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] AC 1732

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v VFAD (2002) 125 FCR 249

Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Msilanga (1992) 34 FCR 169

MM Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Port Stephens Council [2012] NSWCA 417

Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556

MZYYR v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 129 ALD 331

Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 223 CLR 331

Nicholls v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (2010) 243 FLR 177

Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932

Paramasivam v Flynn (1998) 90 FCR 489

Parramatta City Council v Lutz (1988) 12 NSWLR 293

Patsalis v The State of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 267

Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 255

Plaintiff M168/10 v Commonwealth (2011) 85 ALJR 790

Plaintiff M61/2010E v The Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319

Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 90 ALJR 297

Prisoners A to XX Inclusive v State of New South Wales (1994) 75 A Crim R 205

Puttick v Fletcher Challenge Forests Pty Ltd (2007) 18 VR 70

Puttick v Tenon Limited (2008) 238 CLR 265

Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330

Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652

Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491

Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330

S v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 84 ALD 257

SBEG v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) (2012) 292 ALR 29

Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Mastipour (2004) 207 ALR 83

SGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 34 NTLR 224

State of New South Wales v Fahy (2007) 232 CLR 486

State of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow (2010) 106 SASR 331

Stuart v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2010) 185 FCR 308

Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra (2009) 237 CLR 215

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562

Sutherland Shire Council v Becker [2006] NSWCA 344

Tang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2013) 217 FCR 55

The Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424

The Council of the Shire of Wyong v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

The Ministry of Defence v Radclyffe [2009] EWCA Civ 635

The Western Counties Manure Company v The Lawes Chemical Manure Company (1873–74) LR 9 Ex 218

Toomelah Boggabilla Local Aboriginal Land Council v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 69 FCR 306

Tusyn v State of Tasmania (2004) 13 Tas R 51

University of New South Wales v Moorhouse (1975) 135 CLR 1

Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538

Vowles v Evans [2003] 1 WLR 1607

Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] 1 QB 1134

Webber v New South Wales (2003) 31 Fam LR 425

White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207

Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515

X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92

ICF Spry, The Principles of Equitable Remedies (6th Ed., 2001)

JD Heydon, MJ Leeming & PG Turner, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (5th ed., 2015)

R P Balkin, J L R Davis, Law of Torts (5th ed., 2013)



S Deakin, A Johnston, & B Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (6th ed., 2008)







Date of hearing:

28 and 29 April 2016







Registry:

Victoria







Division:

General Division







National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights







Category:

No catchwords







Number of paragraphs:

529







Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr R Merkel, QC, with him Mr E Nekvapil and Mr O Ciolek







Solicitor for the Applicant:

Natural Justice Project Ltd., Allens Linklaters as town agents







Counsel for the Respondents

Mr G Kennett, SC, with him Mr P Knowles and Mr A Yuile







Solicitor for the Respondents

Australian Government Solicitor



ORDERS




VID 305 of 2016



BETWEEN:

PLAINTIFF S99/2016

Applicant




AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent


THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent







JUDGE:

BROMBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 May 2016

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:


1. It would be a breach of the Respondents’ duty of care to exercise reasonable care to discharge the responsibility that they assumed to procure for the Applicant a safe and lawful abortion where:

(a) the abortion is procured so that it takes place in any location where a person who participates in an abortion is exposed to criminal liability; or

(b) the abortion is procured so that it takes place in a hospital or other medical facility that does not have, or that cannot make available to the treating doctor or doctors who perform the abortion:

(i) the neurological expertise and neurological facilities referred to in the expert medical report of Associate Professor Ernest Somerville dated 19 April 2016, together with his expert medical report dated 27 April 2016; and

(ii) the psychiatric expertise, and other resources including cross-cultural expertise, referred to in the expert medical report of Professor Louise Newman dated 18 April 2016, together with her email dated 27 April 2016; and

(iii) the anaesthetic expertise and anaesthetic facilities referred to the expert medical report of Dr Gregory Purcell dated 20 April 2016; and

(iv) the gynaecological expertise and experience, and the gynaecological facilities, referred to in the expert medical report of Professor Caroline de Costa dated 19 April 2016, together with her expert medical report dated 27 April 2016, and the expertise, experience and facilities referred to in the expert medical report of Dr Miriam O’Connor dated 20 April 2016, together with her expert medical report dated 27 April 2016.

AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2. On or before 15 May 2016, the Respondents cease to fail to discharge the responsibility that they assumed to procure for the Applicant a safe and lawful abortion.

3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the legal representative of the Applicant and the Respondents, upon the Respondents discharging their duty of care to exercise reasonable care to procure for the Applicant a safe and lawful abortion:

(a) the abortion not be procured so that it takes place in Papua New Guinea; and

(b) the abortion not be procured so that it takes place in any location where a person who participates in an abortion is exposed to criminal liability; and

(c) the abortion not be procured so that it takes place in a hospital or other medical facility that does not have, or that cannot make available to the treating doctor or doctors who perform the abortion:

(i) the neurological expertise and neurological facilities referred to in the expert medical report of Associate Professor Ernest Somerville dated 19 April 2016, together with his expert medical report dated 27 April 2016; and

(ii) the psychiatric expertise, and other resources including cross-cultural expertise, referred to in the expert medical report of Professor Louise Newman dated 18 April 2016, together with her email dated 27 April 2016; and

(iii) the anaesthetic expertise and anaesthetic facilities referred to in the expert medical report of Dr Gregory Purcell dated 20 April 2016; and

(iv) the gynaecological expertise and experience, and the gynaecological facilities, referred to in the expert medical report of Professor Caroline de Costa dated 19 April 2016, together with her expert medical report dated 27 April 2016, and the expertise, experience and facilities referred to in the expert medical report of Dr Miriam O’Connor dated 20 April 2016, together with her expert medical report dated 27 April 2016.

4. On or before 13 May 2016, the Respondents file and serve any submission in relation to the costs of the application.

5. If the Respondents file and serve any submission in relation to costs pursuant to Order 4, then on or before 20 May 2016 the Applicant file and serve any submission in reply.

6. Should no submission as to costs be made pursuant to Order 4, the Respondents pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application.

7. On the grounds set out at s 37AG(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), publication of the following information be prohibited under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), until further order or six months from today, whichever first occurs:

(a) the name of the Applicant.

(b) the age of the Applicant.

(c) the applicant’s country of origin, and the country in which she lived before she came to Australia.

(d) the identification number of the boat on which the Applicant first arrived in Australia.

(e) the procedure that the Applicant had when she was seven years old.

8. There be liberty to apply to extend or vary Order 7.



9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the legal representatives of the Applicant and the Respondents, the Respondents, whether by their officers, servants, agents, contractors or otherwise, take no step, on or before 5:00 pm on 15 May 2016, to remove the Applicant from Papua New Guinea.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BROMBERG J:

INTRODUCTION

[1]

THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM

[18]

The Essence of the Negligence Claim

[18]

The Statutory Setting

[29]

Migration Act

[29]

Agreements as between the Commonwealth and Nauru

[36]

Conditions relating to detention of asylum seekers on Nauru

[44]

Agreements as between the Commonwealth and Service Providers in relation to provision of services to refugees in Nauru

[50]

Settlement services

[53]

Health services

[60]

Education services

[68]

The Salient Facts

[70]

PROPER LAW OF THE TORT

[158]

Applicable principles

[159]

Discussion—lex loci delicti

[175]

What if the applicable law is that of Papua New Guinea?

[183]

IS THERE A DUTY OF CARE?

[200]

Legal Principles

[200]

Exercise of Statutory Duty

[210]

Assumption of Responsibility

[232]

Application of Legal Principles to the Facts

[243]

IS APPREHENDED BREACH ESTABLISHED?

[279]

Foreseeability, Magnitude and Probability of the Risks

[284]

Legal Setting

[284]

The Medical Setting

[305]

Neurological expertise

[315]

Mental health care

[337]

Gynaecological expertise

[351]

Anaesthesia

[360]

An Interdisciplinary Approach

[364]

The harm if no abortion was procured

[368]

Discussion

[378]

RELIEF

[409]

Section 474 of the Act

[409]

Cases concerning ss 476A and 486A

[413]

Extrinsic materials

[428]

Other cases

[434]

General principles of interpretation

[448]

Declaratory Relief

[460]

Should an Injunction be Granted?

[467]

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES.

[503]

The Fiduciary Duty argument

[504]

Legal unreasonableness

[519]

Exceeding limits of power

[524]

Issues associated with mandatory injunctions

[527]



Yüklə 301,77 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   17




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə