The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia recently determined an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) which raised an important issue concerning the jurisdiction of the FCFCOA and the effect of s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter at first instance involved a habeas corpus application made by the applicant who asserted that he had been unlawfully detained following the High Court’s ruling in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37. As well as seeking habeas relief, the applicant also sought damages in tort for false imprisonment. The Minister for Homes Affairs, the respondent at first instance, challenged the jurisdiction of the FCFCOA to determine the tortious claim. In GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 307, the FCFCOA found that it did have jurisdiction. The Minister appealed this decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
The Full Court determined that the FCFCOA has jurisdiction to determine a claim for damages in tort for false imprisonment in relation to the habeas corpus claim. The Court held that “in our view the conferral of jurisdiction on the FCFCOA by s 476(1) of the Migration Act includes jurisdiction to determine the whole of the “matter” in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth in respect of a migration decision. GKX18 having invoked the jurisdiction of the FCFCOA by filing an application for an injunction and for habeas corpus in relation to his continuing detention, the FCFCOA had jurisdiction to determine all aspects of that “matter”. In the circumstances of this case, the question of whether GKX18 is entitled to damages in tort for false imprisonment is part of the same “matter” as the question of whether habeas corpus should issue. Accordingly, the primary judge was correct to hold that the FCFCOA has jurisdiction to determine GKX18 ’s claim for damages. The appeal of the Minister and the Secretary should be dismissed with costs.”
Madeleine Bridgett appeared for the successful respondent on appeal, led by Quintin Rares and instructed by Alison Battisson.
The judgment can be found here.