Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd

Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr. Mickovski, and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), an entity established under the Corporations Act 2001 to resolve disputes between financial firms and their clients. Mr. Mickovski sought judicial review of a decision made by FOS regarding a complaint he had lodged against a financial institution, contending that the decision was flawed and unjust. The court had to determine whether the decision was susceptible to judicial review and, if so, whether Mr. Mickovski had grounds to challenge it.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the decision made by FOS was subject to judicial review under the principles established in Datafin plc and whether the decision was also reviewable under contract law given that the terms of reference for FOS decisions stated that they were final. The court had to balance the principles of administrative law, particularly the Datafin principle that not all decisions of administrative bodies are subject to judicial review, against the contractual terms that purported to make the decision final and non-reviewable.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that the Datafin principle meant not all administrative decisions are amenable to judicial review. However, it also considered whether the decision in question was subject to review despite the finality clause. The court found that the decision was indeed reviewable because it did not fall within the scope of decisions that are typically immune from judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the court held that the finality clause did not prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction to review the decision, as it did not deprive the court of its inherent jurisdiction to correct errors of law. The decision was quashed on the basis that it was tainted by an error of law.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the FOS be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the FOS for reconsideration in accordance with law. The court did not order any specific performance or compensation but focused on correcting the legal error that had occurred in the decision-making process.