Australia’s High Court on Wednesday dismissed Russia’s legal challenge against a law that revoked its lease for a new embassy site in Canberra, ruling that the government acted lawfully on national security grounds but must pay compensation.
The court’s seven judges unanimously upheld the government’s authority to cancel the lease but said Russia is entitled to compensation and half of its legal costs for bringing the case.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland welcomed the ruling, saying it confirmed the government’s right to act in defense of national security. “Australia will always stand up for our values and our national security,” she said, adding that the government would consider its next steps regarding compensation.
The Russian Embassy did not immediately comment on the decision.
Russia was granted the lease in 2008 for land located just 300 meters from Parliament House to build a new embassy, though it continues to operate from its older Soviet-era compound in the Griffith suburb.
In 2023, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government had received “very clear security advice” against allowing a new Russian diplomatic presence so close to Parliament. The same day, Parliament passed emergency legislation canceling the lease, following a lower court ruling in Russia’s favor against local Canberra authorities.
The disputed site remains mostly undeveloped except for a small consular structure. Moscow has condemned the eviction as “Russophobic hysteria.”
In court, Russian lawyers argued the law was unconstitutional, claiming there was no concrete evidence of a security threat and that the government was obliged to compensate Russia for the loss.
Australia’s Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) had advised the government privately, though the classified details were not disclosed in court.
Government lawyer Stephen Donaghue countered that Canberra was within its legal powers to strip the lease, saying compensation should not be owed to a nation “for problems they cause themselves.”
Russia’s lawyer Bret Walker said it was “disturbing” to justify taking land on national security grounds without proving a specific threat, arguing that property should not be confiscated without compensation.