Goldie v Commonwealth (No 2)

Case [2004] FCA 156

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Goldie v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2004] FCA 156

MIGRATION – arrest and detention – unlawful arrest and detention – based upon suspicion formed on viewing erroneous computer record of applicant’s visa status – record out of date – arrest at place of employment – detention for three days – associated physical trespass – pat searches – medical examination – requirement to remove tie and shoelaces – criteria for assessment of damages – no aggravating circumstances – no circumstances warranting exemplary damages - $22,000 awarded

TORTS – false imprisonment – wrongful arrest and detention under Migration Act – based on honest but erroneous belief that applicant an unlawful non-citizen – arrest at place of employment – detention for three days – associated physical trespass – pat searches and medical examination – criteria for assessment of damages – humiliation and indignity and hurt to feelings – no aggravating circumstances – no circumstances warranting exemplary damages – award of $22,000

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Goldie v Commonwealth of Australia (2000) 180 ALR 609 cited
Goldie v Commonwealth of Australia (2002) 188 ALR 708 cited
Louis v Commonwealth of Australia (1987) 87 FLR 277 cited
State of New South Wales v Riley [2003] NSWCA 208 cited
Ruddock and Ors v Taylor [2003] NSWCA 262 cited
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor (2001) 207 CLR 391 cited

Trindade and Cane, The Law of Torts in Australia, 3rd Edition, OUP (1999)
J Fleming, The Law of Torts, 8th ed, LBC (1992)

BRIAN GERALD JAMES GOLDIE v THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS, JEFFREY TUNBRIDGE, ANTHONY BATTAGLINI, ROSS GREGG, MICHAEL CAIN, JAMIE McCORMACK, THOMAS HOENIG, DONNA RIORDAN
W 53 OF 2000

FRENCH J
27 FEBRUARY 2004
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W53 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

BRIAN GERALD JAMES GOLDIE
APPLICANT

AND:

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MUTLCULTURAL AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JEFFREY TUNBRIDGE
THIRD RESPONDENT

ANTHONY BATTAGLINI
FOURTH RESPONDENT

ROSS GREGG
FIFTH RESPONDENT

MICHAEL CAIN
SIXTH RESPONDENT

JAMIE McCORMACK
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

THOMAS HOENIG
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

DONNA RIORDAN
NINTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The first, second and sixth respondents pay the applicant damages for wrongful arrest and imprisonment in the sum of $22,000.

2.The applicant pay one third of the respondents’ costs of the proceedings, not including the assessment of damages, to be taxed as one set.

3.The first, second and sixth respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the assessment of damages.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W53 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

BRIAN GERALD JAMES GOLDIE
APPLICANT

AND:

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JEFFREY TUNBRIDGE
THIRD RESPONDENT

ANTHONY BATTAGLINI
FOURTH RESPONDENT

ROSS GREGG
FIFTH RESPONDENT

MICHAEL CAIN
SIXTH RESPONDENT

JAMIE…

Continue reading Goldie v Commonwealth (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goldie v Commonwealth (No 2) [2004] FCA 156
Case
[2004] FCA 156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goldie v Commonwealth (No 2) involved the applicant, who sought damages for wrongful arrest and imprisonment against the Commonwealth, represented by various respondents. The applicant alleged that he was unlawfully detained and imprisoned due to errors in the administration of justice. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the liability of the respondents and the appropriate quantum of damages.

The central legal issues revolved around the respondents' liability for the applicant's wrongful arrest and imprisonment, as well as the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. The court had to consider whether the respondents' actions constituted a breach of the applicant's rights and, if so, what the extent of that breach was. The court also had to assess the appropriate compensation for the applicant's suffering and the costs associated with the proceedings.

The court found that the first, second, and sixth respondents were liable for the applicant's wrongful arrest and imprisonment. It concluded that their actions, or lack thereof, led to the applicant's unjust detention. The court awarded the applicant $22,000 in damages, reflecting the severity of the breach and the applicant's suffering. The court also ordered the applicant to contribute one third of the respondents' costs, excluding the assessment of damages, and mandated that the respondents pay the applicant's costs associated with the assessment of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first, second and sixth respondents pay the applicant damages for wrongful arrest and imprisonment in the sum of $22,000.

2. The applicant pay one third of the respondents’ costs of the proceedings, not including the assessment of damages, to be taxed as one set.

3. The first, second and sixth respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the assessment of damages.

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

FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.