I have only ever seen the doctrine of double jeopardy discussed in the criminal law context, so this looked interesting to me.
A bit of research into reopening a case in the NSW L&EC led to this :http://www.lgsa.org.au/resources/documents/LE_Court_Reporter_09_41.pdf
discussing the case of
Wollongong City Council v Falamaki (No.5) NSWLEC 117http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2009/50.html
"Justice Sheahan said that the law has a long recognised doctrine of finality in litigation. He noted that a statutory rule may allow a case to be reopened. However, to do so requires exceptional circumstances.
The Court will not respond to an undefined feeling that injustice has occurred.
Justice Sheahan noted that section 56 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979 states that the Court’s orders are final and conclusive. After orders have been entered, the only options open to an unsuccessful party are to:
(b) apply for a correction under the slip rule, and
(c) challenge the judgment on the grounds of fraud or bad faith.
3.3 Decision: Justice Sheahan said that the previous judgments were complete on their face and regularly made.
Accordingly, the only option open to Dr Falamaki was to appeal to a higher Court. Justice Sheahan dismissed Dr Falamaki’s motion.
Doing an Austlii noteup on s56 of the L&EC Act leads to
Pittwater Council v Brown Brothers Waste Contractors Pty Limited  NSWLEC 50http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2009/50.html
25 In my opinion, however, none of these rules enable the court to vary the orders made on 9 August 2007. Apart from accidental slip or fraud, the power of the court under the rules to extend or abridge any time fixed by an order of the court, or to set aside or vary any judgment or order, can only apply to interlocutory, conditional or procedural orders and not to any final orders. This is because s 56 of the Land and Environment Court Act states that, except in the case of an appeal, “a decision of the court shall be final and conclusive”. A “decision”, in my opinion, means a final judgment or order. A rule of the court cannot be used to alter the final decision or to vary its terms - there must be finality in litigation to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice.
You case is similar in that you had a L&EC order dismissed by a local Court Magistrate, but similar consideration will apply. Not turning up isn't an opportunity to invoke the slip rule.
Therefore, the Council's only options in my opinion are to either:
a) appeal the decision to a higher court (if they are within time)
b) seek leave of the Local Court to reopen the case because of a breach of procedural fairness - ie maybe they never were notified that the matter was being heard that day.
c) serve you with a different order and start the process afresh.
I hope you found my answers helpful. Please
click on the GREEN ACCEPT
button above for my answer.
This is necessary for me to be paid for my work and so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close,
and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!
Please remember this is a dialog, if you have follow up questions please use the REPLY button and ask.