Immigration minister ordered by federal court to pay costs for action over exposure of personal details on website

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

A group of asylum seekers who took the immigration department to court over the exposure of their personal details in a major data breach have won a federal court appeal, and the immigration minister has been ordered to pay their costs.

In February the immigration department inadvertently exposed the personal details of thousands of asylum seekers in their care by disclosing their details on a file on its public website.

The breach sparked a wave of court actions from asylum seekers, but some had failed in an earlier bid in the federal circuit court to seek orders preventing their deportation and declarations that would require the data breach to be considered when their claims were being processed.

The progress of the cases has been confused because of two different federal circuit court judgments that took different views on how the cases should progress.

Appeals relating to both those matters were heard on Friday by a full bench of the federal court before justices Nye Perram, Jayne Jagot and John Griffiths.

Perram, with the agreement of Jagot and Griffiths, found that for at least two of the asylum seekers before Judge Rolf Driver the earlier decision “miscarried” and the matter sent back to the federal circuit court.

“It seems to me in these circumstances that the appeal should be allowed,” he said.

“The minister should be ordered to pay the costs of this court and the costs below.”

The immigration minister’s counsel also conceded during the hearing that there was no process in place to deal with the asylum seekers’ claims at the time a letter from the department secretary was sent out informing them of the breach.

The letter advised asylum seekers affected by the breach that the department would “assess any implications for you personally as part of its normal processes”.

Morrison’s counsel argued that a new bill before the parliament would put a clear process in place, but the bill has not been passed. On Friday Clive Palmer indicated he had some reservations about its contents.

In one of a series of sharp exchanges, Griffiths said: “So there were no normal processes in place at the time?”

The minister’s counsel responded: “They were in development.”

Griffiths observed: “They still haven’t been developed as of today.”

Perram remarked that the relevant provisions of the Migration Act and the circumstances of the case posed a number of difficulties, describing the act as “a wall of mirrors really”.

He later added: “I feel like I’m in Alice in Wonderland.”

The matter continues.