EUB18 v Minister for Home Affairs

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of EUB18 v Minister for Home Affairs presented a compelling case concerning the urgent need for medical treatment for an asylum seeker detained on Nauru. EUB18, represented by counsel, sought an interlocutory injunction to compel the respondents, the Minister for Home Affairs and others, to transfer her to Australia for treatment of her serious medical and psychological conditions. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had established a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the duty of care allegedly owed by the respondents to EUB18 under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the principles guiding the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court considered the medical evidence presented, which outlined the urgent need for treatment, and weighed this against the public interest considerations and the rights of the respondents. The key question was whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicant’s immediate transfer to Australia for necessary medical care.

The court found that EUB18 had indeed established a serious question to be tried, given the grave nature of her medical conditions as substantiated by expert medical reports. Furthermore, the balance of convenience clearly lay in favour of the applicant, given the significant health risks associated with her current detention conditions and the availability of appropriate treatment in Australia. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, requiring the respondents to transfer EUB18 to a suitable location in Australia within specified timelines and to provide adequate notice to her solicitors before any removal from Australia.

The orders of the court mandated that publication of EUB18’s name and country of origin be prohibited, and required the respondents to ensure her timely transfer to Australia for treatment. Additionally, the court provided for the respondents to give at least two clear business days’ notice to the applicant’s solicitors before any removal from Australia, and reserved the costs of the interlocutory application. The court also granted liberty to apply for variation of these orders at short notice.