Pembroke School Incorporated v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2002] FCA 1020

Pembroke School Incorporated v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2002] FCA 1020

Assuming without deciding that the Court had jurisdiction to re-open the entered 1998 judgment or to treat the motion as a fresh proceeding, the Cowells did not establish fraud, material fresh evidence, procedural unfairness, bias or any other exceptional circumstance requiring re-opening in the interests of justice. The matters raised were largely attempts to relitigate factual issues decided by the Commission or to advance issues not raised earlier, and the rediscovered diary and other material did not persuasively show fabrication or that the outcome would probably have been different.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Re Open an Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and for Leave to Produce New Evidence / After Judgment and Orders of 11 November 1998 Had Been Formally Entered; No Appeal Had Been Brought
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['re Opening Proceedings After Judgment' 'fresh Evidence' 'fraud Alleged to Affect Administrative Decision' 'finality of Litigation' 'ostensible Bias' 'waiver' 'judicial Review Under the ADJR Act' 'disability Discrimination in Education']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'disability Discrimination'] ['re Opening Proceedings After Judgment' 'fresh Evidence' 'fraud Alleged to Affect Administrative Decision' 'finality of Litigation' 'ostensible Bias' 'waiver' 'judicial Review Under the ADJR Act' 'disability Discrimination in Education']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion to Re Open an Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and for Leave to Produce New Evidence / After Judgment and Orders of 11 November 1998 Had Been Formally Entered; No Appeal Had Been Brought

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court, as constituted at first instance, had jurisdiction to re-open proceedings after judgment and orders had been formally entered.' 'Whether fresh evidence or allegedly fraudulent documents justified re-opening the ADJR application or setting aside the earlier judgment.' 'Whether alleged failures by the Commission to deal with indirect discrimination, access to education, harassment, goods and services, or procedural fairness justified re-opening the matter.' "Whether alleged apprehended bias arising from the Commissioner's associations had been waived or otherwise justified re-opening the matter."]

Ratio Decidendi

Assuming without deciding that the Court had jurisdiction to re-open the entered 1998 judgment or to treat the motion as a fresh proceeding, the Cowells did not establish fraud, material fresh evidence, procedural unfairness, bias or any other exceptional circumstance requiring re-opening in the interests of justice. The matters raised were largely attempts to relitigate factual issues decided by the Commission or to advance issues not raised earlier, and the rediscovered diary and other material did not persuasively show fabrication or that the outcome would probably have been different.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application of the second respondent by notice of motion dated 16 August 2001 is dismissed.']