FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Erueti v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 961
File number(s): NSD 1364 of 2025
NSD 1366 of 2025Judgment of: NEEDHAM J Date of judgment: 6 August 2025 Date reasons published: 13 August 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – applicants seek urgent interlocutory injunction restraining decision to transfer from immigration detention centre in NSW to immigration detention centre interstate – applicants claim unable to access mental health, legal and family support if transferred – administrative function – broad powers of the respondent to determine the place and mode of detention – legal unreasonableness not established – no serious question to be tried Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5(1), 273 Cases cited: Castlemaine Tooheys Limited v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148; [1986] FCA 58
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199; [2001] FCA 63
Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Others (2018) 265 FCR 634; [2018] FCA 1012
Samsung Electronics Company Limited v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238; [2011] FCAFC 156
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Date of hearing: 6 August 2025 Number of paragraphs: 19 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicants appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Mr G Johnson Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore ORDERS
NSD 1364 of 2025 BETWEEN: DEVARONE WILLIAM JOSEPH MCARL EREUTI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
AUSTRALIAN BORDER FORCE
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
NEEDHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
NSD 1366 of 2025
BETWEEN: EUAN GRAHAM THOMAS STEWART
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
NEEDHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from TranscriptNEEDHAM J:
These two sets of proceedings have come before me at short notice as duty judge and have been dealt with together. Mr Erueti, the applicant in NSD1364/2025, and Mr Stewart, the applicant in NSD1366/2025, have each appeared by AVL from the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. They have each been informed yesterday that they are to be transferred from Villawood to Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre, which is located in Western Australia. They have each put on an application seeking interlocutory orders restraining the Minister, the respondent, and Australian Border Force, the second respondent in NSD1364/2025, from transferring him from Villawood to Yongah Hill or to any other detention centre outside New South Wales. Each of the applications is in similar form.
The matter came on urgently at 5.30pm. The applicants are unrepresented, and they have had very little…
Continue reading Erueti v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicult...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Erueti v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 961
- Case
- [2025] FCA 961
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to decide involved the scope of the Minister's powers under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to determine the place and mode of detention for detainees. The court was also required to determine whether the applicants had established a serious question to be tried regarding the legal unreasonableness of the transfer. The applicants needed to demonstrate that the transfer would be legally unreasonable, considering the broad discretion afforded to the Minister by the Act.
In examining the applicants' submissions, the court noted that under the Act, a detainee has no right or interest to be detained in any particular place and that the Minister has broad powers to determine the place and mode of detention. The court found that it would be difficult to establish legal unreasonableness given the broad nature of the power and the breadth of considerations that may be taken into account. The applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the transfer would be legally unreasonable. Consequently, the court dismissed the application with costs.
The court's decision was grounded in the statutory provisions and the established case law, which recognised the broad discretion of the Minister in determining the place of detention. The applicants had not established that the transfer would be legally unreasonable, and therefore, the application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The court's order was that the application be dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) defines “detain” in s 5(1) as:detain means:(a) take into immigration detention; or(b) keep, or cause to be kept, in immigration detention;and includes taking such action and using such force as are reasonably necessary to do so. That section defines “detainee” as “a person detained”. There is no dispute that each of the applicants is a detainee. Section 273 of the Migration Act defines “detention centre” as “a centre for the detention of persons whose detention is authorised under this Act.” That section provides for detention centres to be established and maintained, and for regulations under subs (2) to deal with “the conduct and supervision of detainees”, and “the powers of persons performing functions in connection with the supervision of detainees.” I agree with Mr Johnson’s submission that the decision to transfer a detainee is an exercise of an administrative function rather than of a power provided by statute. What must the applicants show in order for an order to be made? I have considered, in relation to the case raised by each of the applicants, the likelihood of their being able to make out what appears to be the main route to a final order, should they make such an application; that being the question of legal unreasonableness in relation to the transfer from one detention centre to another. In Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Others (2018) 265 FCR 634; [2018] FCA 1012, Tracey J said (at [123]):A person who is properly detained under the Act pursuant to s 189(1) [such as the applicant in that case, as an unlawful non-citizen], has no right or interest to be detained in any particular place. He or she can lawfully be moved to any place of immigration detention without attracting procedural fairness obligations. Later in that decision, his Honour said at [129]:The Minister has a broad power to determine the place and mode of detention. The definition of “detain” in [s]5(1) of the Act, which refers to taking such action and using such force “as [is] reasonably necessary”, does not employ words of limitation: VLAH at [9] (Ryan J); SBEG v Commonwealth at [49] (Keane CJ, Lander and Siopis JJ). While decisions as to the place of detention are not immune from judicial review, the broad nature of the power and breadth of considerations that may be taken into account mean that it will be difficult to establish legal unreasonableness. In support of their applications and going to the question of legal unreasonableness, Mr Erueti spoke of his connections in New South Wales, his mental health interactions which include counselling and wellbeing sessions, and says that he has fears that any transfer would negatively impact his wellbeing. He says he is about to undergo a psychological evaluation. He says that the stated reason for the approval - that the facility is overcrowded - does not accord with his understanding. He says there are plenty of beds vacant at the moment. He further says that it will be difficult to continue his current investigation of revocation proceedings in relation to the cancellation of his visa, given that his legal representatives are in Sydney.