GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1051

On 9 July 2025, in a historic judgment concerning a writ of habeas corpus, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) in GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 4) [2025] dismissed an application by the Minister and Secretary for Home Affairs for summary dismissal. 

In dismissing the application, the Court accepted that “it is reasonably arguable that the writ of habeas corpus is not confined to cases of physical detention, but extends to restrictions on liberty that are not faced by members of the public generally” and that “it is reasonably arguable that at least some of the particular conditions imposed on the applicant’s visa constitute restrictions on the applicant’s liberty sufficient to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and the injunctions that he seeks.” The Court accepted that the “ambit of the writ of habeas corpus is a triable issue”.

The Court said that it is “arguable that restrictions on any liberty, as opposed to restrictions on freedom of movement, that are not faced by members of the public generally, may be sufficient to found a writ of habeas corpus. Whether the particular conditions imposed on the applicant’s visa are sufficient to justify a writ of habeas corpus are triable questions of fact or law. Arguably, they are serious restrictions of the applicant’s liberties that are not faced by members of the public generally. It seems to me that the applicant has a reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting his substantive claim.”

Madeleine Bridgett represented the applicant led by Quintin Rares. 

The decision can be found here.

Minister and Secretary for Home Affairs ordered to pay indemnity costs in habeas corpus case

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has ordered the Minister and Secretary for Home Affairs to pay the applicant’s costs on an indemnity basis in a habeas corpus claim. The applicant in GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 718 had been held in immigration detention since 2018. In August 2024 he made an application to the Court to be released forthwith on the basis that his detention was unlawful following the landmark decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37. On the last day of the hearing on 16 October 2024, and before the conclusion of the hearing, the Minister issued the applicant a bridging visa which was due to expire four months after the date it was issued. The applicant successfully opposed the Minister’s oral application to dismiss his habeas claim and the matter remains before the Court.

In this costs judgment the Minister for Home Affairs sought to set-off the costs order in favour of the Minister from previous proceedings. The applicant was also successful in opposing this application. The Court accepted the applicant’s submission that a set-off would discourage lawyers from acting on a conditional costs basis and that it would be contrary to the public interest. The Court concluded that “there is a public interest in people challenging governmental decisions being adequately legally represented, and allowing a set-off in circumstances such as the present may discourage appropriate lawyers from acting. This factor weighs particularly heavily in the present case, where, on the material presently before me, the respondents have behaved unreasonably. Consequently, I will order that the costs ordered in the present proceeding not be set-off against the costs in previous proceedings.”  

In ordering costs to be paid on the indemnity basis, the Court found that the Minister and Secretary for Home Affairs had acted unreasonably in that they “ought to have released the applicant from detention following the High Court’s decision in NZYQ”. The Court also found that the respondents ran their case “in wilful disregard of known facts or clearly established law” or made “allegations which ought never to have been made” or unduly prolonged the case by “groundless contentions”.

The respondents have sought leave to appeal the decision.

Madeleine Bridgett represented the applicant.

The decision can be found here.

Appointment to the Mental Health Review Tribunal

St James Hall Chambers congratulates Madeleine Bridgett on her appointment as a part-time Lawyer member of the Mental Health Review Tribunal commencing in September 2024. 

Madeleine Bridgett is a human rights, public law and commercial law barrister. Madeleine has specialised knowledge in trauma-informed practice, mental health, drug and alcohol, child protection, domestic and family violence, and sexual assault. Having served almost three years as Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Madeleine continues her work in this area at the Mental Health Review Tribunal as well as her practice as a Barrister in areas of human rights, public law and commercial law.

Congratulations Madeleine.

The FCFCA affirms the constitutional limits to lawfully detain as held in NZYQ

Dr Christopher Ward SC and Madeleine Bridgett appeared for the successful applicant in a habeas corpus application made on an urgent basis to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in GMZ18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 335. The Court found that the applicant’s immigration detention was unlawful and ordered the immediate release of the applicant. This case considers the effect of the judgments in Chu Kheng Lim v The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 and NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37, including the scope of the constitutional limit to lawfully detain. The Court concludes that the relevant principle in Lim as espoused in NZYQ applies. The judgment can be found here.

Congratulations Madeleine Bridgett

6 St James Hall would like to congratulate Madeleine Bridgett on her recent appointment by the Attorney General as Counsel Assisting for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. 

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was established in July of this year to inquire into a number of matters including systemic issues and any common themes among defence and veteran deaths by suicide, or defence members and veterans who have other lived experience of suicide behaviour or risk factors. 

The terms of reference can be found here:

Stories from Australia's leading human rights advocates

6 St James Hall Counsel Madeleine Bridgett will be moderating this Australian Lawyers Human Rights webinar event with three of Australia's leading human rights advocates The Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, Kate Eastman AM SC and Julian Burnside AO QC sharing experiences of their journey as human rights advocates.

The webinar will be held on 2 September 6:00 PM.

For further information and how to register, please click here.

the human rights concerns of Real Bodies - The Exhibition

Counsel, Madeleine Bridgett discusses the serious human rights concerns of Real Bodies - The Exhibition and organ trafficking on FBI Radio.

To listen to the interview, please click on the recording below.

Madeleine Bridgett calls for law reform to Australia's organ trafficking laws

Currently in Australia organ trafficking laws which can be found in Division 271 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Commonwealth) do not have extraterritorial effect. This means there are no provisions in Australian law to protect people from organ trafficking and organ tourism which occur overseas by Australians. 

On 23 June 2017 The Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade commenced an Inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism. The inquiry examines how the Australian legal system deters organ trafficking and what more can be done to prevent this offence from occurring both in Australia and internationally.

Madeleine Bridgett, Co-Chair of the Business and Human Rights Committee for the Australian Lawyers For Human Rights (ALHR), and Kerry Weste, Vice-President of the ALHR, made submissions to the Inquiry which can be read here. 

Madeleine Bridgett was featured in today's Lawyers Weekly.