Saadat v Commonwealth

Case [2025] SASCA 114

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

SAADAT v COMMONWEALTH

[2025] SASCA 114

Ruling of the Honourable President Livesey  (ex tempore)

3 October 2025

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND OF PARTIES

In the proceedings below, Mr Saadat, the applicant, sued the Commonwealth, the respondent, in damages.  The respondent joined as third parties Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd, G4S Australia Pty Ltd, GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd, and G4S Regional Management (UK & I) Ltd by means of third-party claims seeking relief in contract and negligence (the third parties). The respondent contended that each of the third parties were jointly and severally liable to indemnify it in respect of any damages awarded to the applicant and, if applicable, for interest.

After dismissing the applicant’s claim, the primary judge dismissed the respondent’s third-party claims. The applicant has now appealed, serving the respondent with his Notice of Appeal containing more than 30 grounds of appeal. 

The question for the Court is whether the applicant or the respondent is obliged to join the third parties to this appeal, pursuant to r 214.2(2) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) (the UCR).

Held:

1.Whilst there is an “arguable possibility” that the third parties’ rights and interests may be affected by orders made on an appeal between the applicant and the respondent, their interests are not directly affected where no relief is sought against them.

2.To the extent that the third parties may have at least an indirect interest in the appeal, that could be addressed by their joinder as interested parties so that they can be both heard and bound.

3.Though an order could be made joining the third parties as interested parties, that would not permit relief to be sought against them and the Court is reluctant to make that order pending a decision from the respondent about whether it intends to seek orders and relief against the third parties.

4.Where only the respondent stands to benefit from the joinder of the third parties, the respondent should join them to a new appeal, which can be heard at the same time as the applicant’s appeal.

Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) ss 19B, 27; Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) rr 211.1, 214.2, 217.11, referred to.
Barclays Bank v Tom [1923] 1 KB 221; Brougham v Edwards (No 2) [2024] SASCA 129; Chapman v Chapman [1946] SASR 217; Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Young (No 2) (1991) 4 ACSR 355; Edwards v Edwards [1913] VLR 30; Grovenor v Permanent Trustee Co of NSW Ltd (1966) 40 ALJR 329; John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1; Law Society of South Australia v Betro [2025] SASCFC 2; News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League (1996) 64 FCR 410; Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] MLJ 52; Pera v Pera (2008) 218 FLR 22

Continue reading Saadat v Commonwealth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Saadat v Commonwealth [2025] SASCA 114
Case
[2025] SASCA 114
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Saadat, against an order of Stanley J dismissing his claim against the respondent, the Commonwealth. Mr Saadat alleged he suffered psychiatric harm due to detention conditions at the Baxter and Curtin Immigration Reception and Processing Centres, alleging breaches of a duty of care by the respondent. The respondent had joined third parties, who operated the detention centres, seeking indemnity. The primary judge had dismissed both the applicant's claim and the respondent's third-party claims.

The central legal issue was whether the third parties, whose claims against them had been dismissed by the primary judge, were required to be joined as parties to the applicant's appeal. The applicant contended they were not, as he was not appealing the dismissal of the third-party claims and finality had been reached on that aspect. The respondent argued that the dismissal of the third-party claims was a consequential order that could be set aside if the primary judge's decision on the applicant's claim was overturned on appeal.

The court determined that the applicant was not obliged to join the third parties to his appeal. However, recognising that the respondent intended to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claims, the court granted the respondent leave to file a notice of appeal against the third parties. This new appeal would be heard concurrently with the applicant's existing appeal to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. The court then set a timetable for the filing of submissions and scheduled the hearing of the appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the following reasons, where only the respondent stands to benefit from the joinder of the third parties, the respondent should join them to a new appeal, which can be heard at the same time as the applicant’s appeal.Relevant background The appeal is against the order of Stanley J (as his Honour then was, the primary judge) dismissing the applicant’s claim against the respondent. The applicant alleged that he had suffered psychiatric harm caused by the conditions in which he was detained by the respondent at the Baxter Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (Baxter), in breach of a duty of care the respondent owed to him.[2] In the alternative, the applicant alleged that, as a result of the respondent’s breach of duty, he suffered psychiatric harm caused by the conditions of his detention at the Curtin Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, aggravated by the conditions of his detention at Baxter. [2] Saadat v Commonwealth & Ors [2025] SASC 59, [2]. The applicant also alleged that the respondent breached its duty of care by failing to treat his psychiatric injuries whilst he was in detention.[3][3] Saadat v Commonwealth & Ors [2025] SASC 59, [2]. The third parties were engaged by the respondent to operate and manage the detention centres.[4] The respondent contended that each of the third parties were jointly and severally liable to indemnify it in respect of any damages awarded to the applicant and, if applicable, for interest.[5] [4] Saadat v Commonwealth & Ors [2025] SASC 59, [2700], [2707].[5] Saadat v Commonwealth & Ors [2025] SASC 59, [2698]. After dismissing the applicant’s claim, the primary judge dismissed the respondent’s third party claims.The parties’ contentions The applicant contends that the third parties are neither parties nor “interested parties” within the meaning of r 214.2(2) and r 211.1 of the UCR because the primary judge dismissed the third party proceedings,[6] and by his appeal he does not challenge that order.[6] See FDN 722, Order 3: “The respondent’s third party claims are dismissed”. The applicant contends that finality on the third party proceedings has been reached.[7] If the appeal succeeds, the order dismissing the third party claims will remain undisturbed, and only the respondent will be liable to him in damages. The applicant contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to disturb the order dismissing the third party proceedings absent an appeal against that order.[8][7] Relying on Chapman v Chapman [1946] SASR 217, 218 (Napier CJ, Reed and Ligertwood JJ).[8] Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), s 19B. The respondent contends that the order dismissing the third party proceedings is a “consequential order” and, where a first instance order is set aside on appeal, consequential orders may also be set aside.[9] The respondent relied on the following passage of the primary judge’s reasons, which it contended demonstrated that the primary judge anticipated that the third party claims may be revived if the applicant succeeded on appeal:[10]As the applicant’s claim against the Commonwealth must be dismissed, there is no entitlement to an indemnity by ACM or G4S in favour of the Commonwealth given it has no liability to the applicant. In these circumstances the submission was put that I should refrain from considering the issues that arise on the third party claims by the Commonwealth as there was no work for them to do. However, I consider that in case there is a successful appeal from the order dismissing the applicant’s claim against the Commonwealth, where practicable I should address certain issues that arise on the third party claims. Those issues are necessarily limited by the dismissal of the applicant’s claim. They are largely confined to questions of law rather than fact.[9] Relying on UCR, r 217.11.[10] Saadat v Commonwealth & Ors [2025] SASC 59, [2697].

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

A multiplicity of appeals should likewise be avoided. Conclusion The applicant is not obliged to join the third parties pursuant to r 214.2(2) of the UCR as interested parties to this appellate proceeding pending a decision by the respondent about the course it intends to take. After granting the respondent a short adjournment, it has indicated that it seeks leave to file a Notice of Appeal, joining the third parties. I will give leave to the respondent to do that in seven days. After hearing from the parties and the third parties about the joint trials on related issues which will commence before O’Sullivan J in the Federal Court on 4 May 2026, with an anticipated listing of around 12 weeks, I will make the following orders:1.The respondent is granted leave to file a Notice of Appeal against the third parties in seven days. 2.The matter is listed for hearing before the Court of Appeal on Monday, 27 April 2026 at 10.15am, with five days set aside.3.The appellant is to file and serve written submissions and a list of authorities by 4.00pm on Friday, 19 December 2025. 4.The respondent is to file and serve written submissions and a list of authorities by 4.00pm on Tuesday, 17 February 2026. 5.The proposed third parties are to file and serve their written submissions and lists of authorities by 4.00pm on Friday, 13 March 2026. 6. The appellant may file and serve any reply by 4.00pm on Friday, 20 March 2026. 7.The parties have liberty to apply.8.The matter will be called over on Friday, 20 February 2026 at 9.15am. On that occasion I expect the parties to have conferred and fairly allocated a division of issues and time for the hearing, ensuring that there is no repetition of issues where any common interest can be identified.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.