Background
The self-represented applicant had traded contracts for difference through an IG Markets account between 2009 and 2016 and said he suffered significant losses. In April 2025, he asked the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) to consider a complaint alleging misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct by IG, including a failure to respond to signs of gambling addiction.
AFCA declined to consider the complaint because it was outside the six-year limit in its rules. It found no special circumstances justified an extension. AFCA confirmed that position after the applicant objected; its Service Complaints Team also upheld the handling of the matter, and AFCA’s Independent Assessor said it could not reconsider the substantive jurisdictional decision.
The applicant sought judicial review under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), asking the Court to invalidate and quash AFCA’s decisions and remit the complaint. AFCA applied for summary dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Neskovcin summarily dismissed the proceeding. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s s 39B judicial-review claim because s 1337A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) excludes that jurisdiction for this kind of matter.
Independently, AFCA decisions are contractual rather than statutory in character and are not susceptible to judicial review. The AFCA Rules form a tripartite contract between AFCA, the financial firm and the complainant. A court may address whether an AFCA determination conforms with that contract, including claims involving fraud, dishonesty or lack of good faith, but the applicant had pursued only judicial review and had not advanced such a contractual claim.
The Court also noted that AFCA determinations and decisions leading to them are expressly excluded from review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). No amendment could cure the judicial-review case the applicant wished to bring.
Key Takeaways
- AFCA determinations are not amenable to judicial review merely because they concern AFCA’s own jurisdiction or time-limit rules.
- AFCA’s authority and obligations arise from the contractual AFCA Rules, notwithstanding the scheme’s statutory setting.
- A claim seeking judicial-review remedies against AFCA may be summarily dismissed where no viable contractual claim is pleaded or intended.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the narrow route for challenging AFCA outcomes. Parties cannot use public-law judicial-review remedies to reopen an AFCA decision, including a refusal to extend a complaint time limit.
For complainants and financial firms, the case underscores the importance of identifying any challenge as a contractual one and pleading a recognised basis for contractual review, rather than framing alleged errors in AFCA’s process as jurisdictional error.