Background
Jacob Lye, a former employee of the Bureau of Meteorology, had previously sought interim injunctive relief concerning his employment. On 14 May 2026, the Federal Court dismissed that interlocutory application.
Mr Lye then applied for the earlier application to be “reopened for limited reconsideration”. A registrar dismissed that application on 15 June 2026, explaining that the injunction application had already been heard and determined and that any challenge to the judgment had to proceed by appeal. Mr Lye sought judicial review of the registrar’s decision under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
The Court’s Holding
Justice Snaden affirmed the registrar’s dismissal. Although r 39.05(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) permits variation or setting aside of an interlocutory order in exceptional circumstances, it is not an alternative appellate process. Ordinarily, reopening requires a material change of circumstances or genuinely new material that could not reasonably have been presented at the original hearing.
Mr Lye’s claims that health issues, disability-related limitations and self-representation had prevented him from presenting a fuller case did not establish a denial of procedural fairness. He had been afforded an opportunity to advance his case at the urgent hearing and had not sought more time. His additional arguments, evidence about deteriorating health, and proposed explanation for delay did not establish exceptional circumstances or a prima facie case for the previously refused injunction.
The Court also ordered Mr Lye to pay the Bureau’s costs of the reopening and review applications, to be assessed if not agreed. The applications were pursued without reasonable cause for the purposes of s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Key Takeaways
- A rule permitting variation of interlocutory orders cannot be used to relitigate a failed application.
- New arguments or evidence that could have been presented earlier will not ordinarily justify reopening an interlocutory decision.
- Self-representation and personal difficulties do not, by themselves, establish procedural unfairness or prevent an adverse costs order.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the narrow scope for revisiting a concluded interlocutory application in the Federal Court. A dissatisfied litigant must ordinarily use the appellate process, rather than recast the same request for relief as a reopening application.
It also illustrates that the costs protection in s 570 of the Fair Work Act may be displaced where an employment-related application is futile or pursued without reasonable cause.