Self v McIntyre & Peacock

The case of Self v McIntyre & Peacock involves a dispute concerning the jurisdiction of a Family Court judge to rectify an order made in a domestic violence matter. The matter was heard before the court with the applicant, Self, seeking to challenge an order made by the first respondent, which allowed the respondent spouse to retain their weapons licence. The second respondent, represented by McIntyre & Peacock, argued that the first respondent had an inherent jurisdiction to rectify his order. The court was required to determine whether the first respondent had the power to amend the order, either under section 147A of the relevant Act or through the court's inherent jurisdiction.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the arguments put forward by the second respondent, which were based on remarks made by the majority of the High Court in Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Ltd v Simonds. However, the court ultimately determined that the application to rectify the order was not appropriate in this case. The court found that the order made by the first respondent had already run its course, and there were no proceedings or orders remaining that could be varied. As a result, the first respondent did not have the authority to amend the order, either under section 147A or through the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court therefore set aside the order made by the first respondent and ordered that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that all orders made in Family Court proceedings are carefully considered and properly documented, as the consequences of failing to do so can be significant.

In conclusion, the court found that the first respondent did not have the authority to rectify the order made in the domestic violence matter, either under section 147A or through the court's inherent jurisdiction. The order made by the first respondent was set aside, and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs. This case serves as a reminder to Family Court judges of the importance of carefully considering and documenting all orders made in proceedings before the court.