DBE17 v Commonwealth of Australia

In DBE17 v Commonwealth of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia considered a claim for damages for unlawful imprisonment relating to immigration detention. The applicant, a child born in Australia to parents who had arrived by boat without a valid visa, contended that his detention in immigration detention for approximately 16 months before being granted a visa was unlawful, and he sought damages for false imprisonment. The Commonwealth of Australia applied for the strike out of the claim, arguing that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim due to statutory construction of section 494AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The court had to decide whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim, and if not, whether the High Court had jurisdiction under section 75 of the Constitution. The court considered the term “unauthorised maritime arrival” and the power of the High Court to remit proceedings to the Federal Court. The court concluded that section 494AA(1)(c) of the Migration Act deprived the Federal Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim, and that only the High Court had jurisdiction.

The court observed that the Parliament could confer jurisdiction on a federal court or the courts of the various States, subject to constitutional limitations. The court must accept the limits of its jurisdiction as defined by the Parliament, and in this case, it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. The court found that nothing in section 494AA was intended to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution. The court considered the appropriate place to bring this application was in the High Court under section 75(5). The court gave the parties an opportunity to discuss a proposed form of orders reflecting the court's reasons for judgment, and to attempt to agree on a position on costs.

The court did not rule on the Commonwealth’s alternative arguments, as it had accepted its arguments that the Court had no jurisdiction. The matters raised in the amended statement of claim were of great significance, and the court believed they should be determined in a context where the Court had jurisdiction. The court noted that the Commonwealth's concession that it did not bring an application for summary dismissal under section 31A of the Federal Court Act may well have been problematic for the resolution of the Commonwealth's alternative claims, but because of the conclusion the court had reached on jurisdiction, it did not decide those matters. If there was a further proceeding filed in the High Court, the nature of the allegations made by the applicant would be a matter for the parties in that Court.