Dunkerley v Comcare

The matter of Dunkerley v Comcare involves an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Court of Australia. The respondent, Comcare, had previously succeeded in an appeal by Ms Dunkerley from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was dismissed by Flick J. Ms Dunkerley sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against the orders of Flick J, but her application was dismissed. The central legal issue before the court was whether it had the power to make orders after a proceeding had been finalised. Specifically, the court considered whether it had the authority to set aside or vary its previous order dismissing Ms Dunkerley's appeal under section 25(2B)(bc) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

The court reasoned that once an order has been entered, it generally cannot be reopened except under specific circumstances, such as under rule 39.05 or the inherent power under the slip rule. In this case, there was no basis for invoking either exception. The court highlighted that once an order is perfected, it signifies the end of the court's power to reconsider the matter, as affirmed by the High Court in Burrell v The Queen. The court further noted that Ms Dunkerley had failed to identify any error in the earlier decision and that her application was otherwise without merit. Consequently, the court concluded that it was functus officio and had no power to reopen the entered order.

The court dismissed Ms Dunkerley’s application as incompetent, finding that she had not addressed the deficiencies in her appeal preparation or articulated any valid grounds for the appeal. The court held that Flick J had correctly exercised his discretion in accordance with established principles. The final order of the court was that the application be dismissed with costs.