Australia’s federal Albanese government has suffered another costly legal defeat over its immigration detention policies, opening the door for Australian taxpayers to face compensation payouts that could reach tens of millions of dollars. The full bench of the High Court of Australia based in Canberra delivered its ruling on Wednesday in favor of Safwat Abdel-Hady, an Austrian national who has been in the country since he first arrived in 1997.
Abdel-Hady’s visa was canceled by former Immigration Minister Peter Dutton back in March 2017. Court documents confirmed that he lives with an aggressive form of thrombophilia, a blood clotting condition that makes air travel medically unsafe for him, leaving the Commonwealth government with no reasonable path to deport him from Australian territory. The executive branch already conceded that Abdel-Hady was unlawfully held in immigration detention between July 2022 and February 2024, but attempted to avoid civil liability for damages by claiming government immunity.
Commonwealth lawyers argued that the officers who detained Abdel-Hady acted in accordance with the Migration Act and legal precedents that were in place before the landmark 2023 NZYQ ruling, which first established that detaining any person with no reasonably foreseeable prospect of deportation is illegal under Australian law. They also maintained that officers had acted in compliance with all applicable Australian legislation.
However, High Court Justice James Edelman rejected the government’s immunity claim in his ruling, warning that granting immunity would create unequal treatment under the law between the Commonwealth, its executive officers involved in immigration detention, and all other Australian residents.
“If the Commonwealth were granted immunity, public officials would be protected from liability for false imprisonment when acting on a mistaken understanding of the law, while ordinary citizens would face no such protection,” Edelman wrote. “This unequal treatment directly contradicts the Diceyan principle of legal equality that requires all people to be held equally accountable under the law. All persons, regardless of their position, must comply with the law as properly applied to their conduct, and abide by court orders. Without explicit statutory authorization, there is no justification for treating the Commonwealth or its executive officers differently from any other person.”
Abdel-Hady had argued that his entire period of detention between 2022 and 2024 was unauthorized under the Migration Act, and sought full damages for unlawful false imprisonment, arguing the Commonwealth was vicariously liable as the employer of the detaining officer. Justice Edelman ultimately ruled that the Commonwealth is liable both directly and vicariously for the unlawful detention.
The ruling marks the latest major setback for the Albanese government’s immigration framework in the wake of the NZYQ decision. Opposition home affairs spokesperson Jonno Duniam slammed the government for failing to act after repeated warnings, calling the outcome “another NZYQ disaster for the Albanese Government.”
Duniam argued that the government’s mismanagement of the legal and practical fallout from the original NZYQ ruling has left taxpayers on the hook for potentially tens of millions in additional compensation claims. “Since the original NZYQ decision, Australians have been forced to watch dangerous non-citizens released into their communities, repeated legal setbacks, and a government constantly caught flat footed,” he said. “The Albanese government should be responsibly protecting the community, sensibly managing the immigration system, and ensuring the Commonwealth acts lawfully.”
This defeat is not the first for the Albanese government following the NZYQ ruling. The government previously attempted to implement ankle monitoring for detainees released after the decision, but that policy was also struck down as unconstitutional by the High Court in March 2024. It also negotiated a multi-billion dollar agreement with the Pacific island nation of Nauru to resettle a group of detainees, a program that has been mired in ongoing controversy.
In response to Wednesday’s ruling, a government spokesperson stated only that officials are “carefully considering the judgment and its implications.”
The decision has been broadly welcomed by refugee and migrant advocacy groups, who describe it as a critical step toward accountability for unlawful indefinite detention. Jana Favero, Deputy CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, called the ruling a significant outcome that paves the way for other wrongfully detained people to finally access justice.
“We have always said that indefinite detention is harmful and comes at a devastating cost to people’s physical health, their mental health, and their overall wellbeing,” Favero said. “Families have been separated and people are still living with the consequences of having years of their lives stolen from them. The lesson from this case is clear – this harm should never have been inflicted, and the government must ensure it never happens again.”
Legal analysts note that the ruling sets a binding precedent that could open the door to dozens more compensation claims from other people who were held in unlawful indefinite immigration detention, driving the total cost to taxpayers well into the tens of millions of dollars.