This case note provides an overview of the key facts and findings of the High Court in Plaintiff M68/2015 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors  HCA 1, and sets out some of the key developments following the case. The plaintiff, an asylum seeker from Bangladesh, had been detained in Nauru at one of Australia’s two regional processing centres before being brought to Australia for medical treatment in 2014. She brought this case against the Australian Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Commonwealth of Australia and Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd in an effort to prevent her return to Nauru. The main question in the case was whether the Australian government had the power, either in the form of a statutory or non-statutory executive power, to contract for and control the detention of asylum seekers in the offshore detention centre in Nauru. The majority of the court (French CJ, Kiefel, Nettle, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ) held – in four separate judgments – that the government did have the necessary legal authority to be involved in the detention of asylum seekers in Nauru, although they were divided about whether the Australian government was actually in control of this detention and the basis on which it was lawful. Gordon J was in dissent, finding that the government had significant control over the detention of the plaintiff and had acted beyond its power in doing so.
Complementary Protection Decisions
- Summary of additions since last update (last updated 4 March 2016)
- Summary of Australian Tribunal decisions (2015–) (last updated 4 March 2016)
- Summary of Australian court decisions (2015–) (last updated 4 March 2016)
- Summary of New Zealand decisions (2010–) (last updated 4 March 2016)