Minister for Home Affairs v SZRWS

The applicants, Serco and Serco Australia Pty Ltd, sought leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to grant an interlocutory injunction to the respondent, SZRWS, restraining the applicants from implementing a policy that restricted the food products that might be brought to SZRWS and other persons in immigration detention from visitors. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had demonstrated a substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong, and whether the applicants had complied with the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) in relation to the evidence they sought to rely on.
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that a substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The court also found that the applicants had not complied with r 36.57 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) in relation to the evidence they sought to rely on. However, the court exercised its discretion under r 1.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to dispense with compliance with that rule. The court further found that the evidence was not hearsay or opinion evidence, but rather evidence of events that had happened. The court concluded that the applicants had not made out a case for leave to appeal and refused their application, with costs.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the legal principles applicable to interlocutory injunctions and applications for leave to appeal. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the grant of the interlocutory injunction was wrong or that a substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused. The court also found that the applicants had not complied with the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) in relation to the evidence they sought to rely on, but exercised its discretion to dispense with compliance with that rule. The court's decision is a reminder of the importance of demonstrating a substantial injustice in applications for leave to appeal and the need to comply with the relevant procedural rules.