The SCT is an independent tribunal established under law. It is not under the 'jurisdiction' of the Treasury like the courts are not under the jurisdiction of the Attorneys-General.
If the SCT has determined the matter, then the matter has been decided and is 'Res Judicata.' Res Judicata is a species of estoppel and an absolute defence that a party may claim if the other party attempts to try to 'have another go.' Res Judicata applies in the same jurisdiction or to any other jurisdiction.
Thus, the issues determined before the SCT are considered final and conclusive. If you are not happy with the decision of the SCT your only option is to appeal to the Federal Court.
The letter from the Tribunal that informed me that I could appeal to the Federal Court gave me 28 days to do so, a time frame I did not meet as I did not believe I could add any new material. That has now changed so I now need to ask if, at the time, I was at liberty to seek recourse via the Magistrates Court rather than the Federal Court, or by lodging the complaint with the SCT I was compelled to only appeal via the Federal Court?
Also does my lodging a claim via the Magistrates Court now preclude me from lodging a late appeal via the Federal Court if I was to withdraw my action from the Magistrates Court?
The "new information" pertains to the increase of 350% in insurance costs against my superannuation fund - which usurped the entire fund of $11,273 within 4 years - constituting a "new policy" for which proper disclosure would have been required via a new PDS.
Thank you for that Legal Guru I am pleased to know that I can withdraw the claim before the Magistrate's Court and lodge an application for leave to appeal via the Federal Court but I would still like to know if it was my prerogative to make a claim via the Magistrate's Court rather than appeal via the Federal Court, as the defendant is a national organization with offices in Perth. If so I don't see why estoppel should apply though I accept it probably does.
Just a follow up, I discussed this situation with a lawyer from Slater and Gordon and he expressed a view that if my complaint before the SCT remained administrative in character rather than judicial in character then estoppel may not apply. My complaint was withdrawn by the SCT and though I could have appealed this I decided not to because it was evident to me that the SCT was dismissive of critical aspects. Hence I have reason to believe my complaint remained administrative in character.