This monthly report is compiled and briefly summarised by a group of lawyers on a voluntary basis for the benefit of readers of The Edge.
Please consult your own lawyers if you need advice on the cases, issues and related matters highlighted here.
Federal Court (‘FC’) sets guidelines with respect to its power to review its own decisions
The FC, being the apex Court of the country, is not bound by its own decisions. In hearing an appeal proper, the FC may depart from its earlier decisions. In reviewing its own decisions, the FC must be satisfied that the case is fit for review in that it falls within the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances. Examples include coram failure or the panel of the FC was improperly constituted, breach of natural justice, or when bias is established. These examples fall within the meaning of ‘manifest miscarriage of justice’. To expand the category of cases beyond ‘manifest miscarriage of justice’, or giving a broad or unrestricted discretion to review its own decisions, is a recipe for chaos and forsakes public policy — there will be no end to finality and certainty in judicial decisions and which has the effect of bringing the legal system into disrepute. In this context, rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 (‘Rule 137’) enables the FC in upholding justice to review its own decisions in exceptional cases.