He said this right had been recognised in dicta in the High Court,meaning it was not a binding part of a previous decision but offered significant guidance to courts.

Dr Ward said this right of re-entry was subject to the “principle of legality”,which requires Parliament to use clear language to restrict fundamental common law rights. He said the “clearest possible words” would be required,and the Biosecurity Act did not include words of that kind.

But Craig Lenehan,SC,acting for the Commonwealth,said “the rights that are raised were intended to be impinged upon by the Parliament” and the Biosecurity Act’s provisions functioned as a “legislative bulldozer”,overriding other legal rights.

The right of re-entry was “swept away” by a section of the law which said an emergency declaration would apply “despite any provision of any other Australian law”.

In a decision late on Monday,Justice Thawley agreed with the Commonwealth and said the law was drafted with an appreciation that biosecurity emergencies might take a wide variety of forms and the precise nature of future threats could not be known. Parliament should be taken to be conferring a broad power,he said.

The Biosecurity Act also required the Health Minister to be satisfied that emergency measures are “no more restrictive or intrusive than is required in the circumstances”. Mr Newman’s lawyers argued Mr Hunt failed to meet this requirement,but Justice Thawley found otherwise.

He noted that the determination included carve-outs,including for emergency medical flights.

A hearing date for the next phase of the case,involving the constitutional arguments,has yet to be set. It is not yet clear if the court could hear those arguments after the ban lifts on Friday.