Day v Woolworths Group Limited

Day, the appellant, commenced proceedings against Woolworths Group Limited, the first respondent, seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered in a slip and fall incident at a store owned by the respondent. The appellant sought to consolidate the matter with another proceeding, obtain declarations regarding the truthfulness of certificates of readiness, and set the matter down for trial. The first respondent filed an application for independent medical examinations and sought to strike out parts of the appellant’s statement of claim. The primary judge dismissed the appellant’s applications, struck out paragraphs of the statement of claim, and ordered a stay of proceedings until the appellant submitted to medical examinations. The appellant sought to appeal this decision, arguing that the primary judge was biased and that the costs order should be reviewed.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in exercising the discretion to order a stay, strike out parts of the statement of claim, and dismiss the appellant’s applications. The court also needed to decide if the primary judge was biased, given his previous writings on self-represented litigants, and whether the appellant could appeal the adverse costs order without leave. The primary judge’s decision to order a stay and strike out parts of the statement of claim was based on the need for medical evidence and the relevance of the struck-out paragraphs to the proceedings. The court found no basis for a finding of bias, as the primary judge had not exhibited any signs of partiality in hearing the matter.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in exercising the discretion to order a stay and strike out parts of the statement of claim. The primary judge's decision was reasonable given the need for medical evidence and the lack of relevance of the struck-out paragraphs. The court also found no evidence of bias on the part of the primary judge. The appellant's failure to seek leave to appeal the costs order meant that the appeal against the costs order could not be maintained. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.