TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK OR PSYCHIATRIC HARM - AT COMMON LAW
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK OR PSYCHIATRIC HARM - AT COMMON LAW - FACTORS - RECOGNISABLE PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK OR PSYCHIATRIC HARM - AT COMMON LAW - DAMAGE AND CAUSATION
CITIZENSHIP AND MIGRATION - MIGRATION - DETENTION AND REMOVAL OF UNLAWFUL NON-CITIZENS - DETENTION - CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
Mr Payam Saadat (the applicant) arrived in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen in December 2000. He sought asylum and was detained pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant brings a claim relating to his detention at Baxter Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (Baxter) in South Australia from September 2002 to April 2005.
The applicant alleges the respondent (the Commonwealth) breached its duty of care to him while he was detained at Baxter, causing him to suffer a recognisable psychiatric injury resulting in loss and damage. He alleges that his psychiatric injury was caused by the conditions of his detention and/or by a failure to treat him for his psychiatric injury at Baxter.
The day-to-day operation and management of Baxter was conducted by contractors. The Commonwealth joined these contractors and their relevant entities by filing third party claims against each of the first to fourth third parties. The applicant does not pursue a claim directly against the third parties.
The foundational factual issue for determination in the primary action is whether the applicant suffered a recognisable psychiatric injury during his time at Baxter or after his detention. The issue that follows is whether any such injury can be attributed to the features or conditions of his detention which are compensable, and/or from a negligent failure to treat him during his detention at Baxter.
These issues must be determined within the context of the applicant’s lawful detention. Pursuant to provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), any injury, loss or damage attributable to certain features or conditions of his detention are non-compensable and accordingly, the Commonwealth cannot be held liable for such. These features include the mere fact of his detention, the length and indeterminate nature of his detention, his constant fear of deportation and the rejection of his application for a protection visa and his unsuccessful appeals from that decision.
Held (granting the applicant an extension of time in which to bring the primary claim, but dismissing the applicant’s claim and the Commonwealth’s third party claims):
1.The applicant’s evidence is not a reliable basis for making findings of fact. The Court is unable to rely upon his testimony except where it is supported by reliable corroboration, where his evidence is unchallenged, or is consistent with objectively established facts and the apparent logic of events, or where it involves an admission against interest.
2.That…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Saadat v Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Saadat v Commonwealth [2025] SASC 59
Case
[2025] SASC 59
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Saadat v Commonwealth is a case that came before the court regarding a claim for damages arising from the detention of the applicant, an Afghan national, by Australian authorities. The dispute involved the Commonwealth of Australia and the applicant, focusing on the legality of the applicant's detention under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court had to determine the standard of care and duty owed by the Commonwealth to the applicant, as well as whether the applicant suffered recognisable psychiatric harm due to the detention, and if such harm was caused by the Commonwealth's negligence.
The court examined several key legal issues, including the scope of the duty of care in tort law, particularly concerning psychiatric harm caused by negligence. The court considered whether the Commonwealth owed a duty of care to the applicant that extended to protecting him from psychiatric harm resulting from his detention. It also assessed whether the applicant suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness as a result of the detention, and if so, whether this illness was caused by the Commonwealth's negligence. The court had to evaluate the relevant factors that establish a duty of care and the causation of psychiatric harm in the context of immigration detention.
In its decision, the court found that the Commonwealth did not owe a duty of care to the applicant that extended to preventing psychiatric harm from his detention. The court concluded that the applicant's detention was lawful and did not breach any standard of care that would give rise to a duty of care. Consequently, the applicant's claim for damages due to psychiatric harm resulting from the detention was dismissed. The court also ruled that the Commonwealth's third-party actions against ACM and G4S were dismissed in light of the primary claim's failure. The court left the matter of costs to be heard separately.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
These difficulties highlight the problem in relation to assessing the question of the costs of the third party claims where the applicant has failed on his primary claim. CONCLUSION For these reasons, I would grant the applicant an extension of time to 3 February 2012 within which to bring this action but I would dismiss the applicant’s claim. As a result I also dismiss the Commonwealth’s third party actions against ACM and G4S. I will hear the parties as to costs. POSTSCRIPT After the Court reserved judgment in this matter the High Court delivered reasons for its judgment in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (NZYQ).[2379] [2379] [2023] HCA 37, (2023) 97 ALJR 1005. On 11 December 2023 the solicitors for the Commonwealth wrote to the Court noting that NZYQ had overruled the constitutional holding in Al-Kateb v Godwin.[2380] The Court was advised that the Commonwealth was considering the impact of NZYQ on the matter and in particular, the Commonwealth’s reliance on Al-Kateb and asked the Court to permit time for the parties to consider whether any further argument was required. [2380] Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37, (2004) 219 CLR 562. On 13 February 2024 the Commonwealth through its solicitors advised that following the judgment in NZYQ the Commonwealth’s reliance on Al-Kateb should be read to refer to detention being constitutionally permitted until such time as “there is no real prospect of removal of the alien from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.”[2381] [2381] NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 at [55], (2023) 97 ALJR 1005 at 1018. On 14 February 2024 the applicant’s solicitors notified the Court that, in light of the judgment in NZYQ, he was considering whether he should amend the submissions made and whether he should seek leave to amend his Statement of Claim. He sought time for this purpose. On 12 April 2024 the applicant’s solicitors filed and served an application for leave to file a revised Statement of Claim alleging that the Commonwealth was liable for damages for unlawful detention of the applicant and seeking to have that claim heard and determined in these proceedings. On 20 May 2024 the applicant sought leave to withdraw the application. That leave was granted. As a result, the Court has not considered whether NZYQ should have any effect on the judgment in this matter beyond those submissions made by the Commonwealth solicitors in the letter of 13 February 2024.