Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Adam Zizovski bnf Selim Zizovski

Insurance Australia Ltd trading as NRMA Insurance (the applicant) sought leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment of the District Court. The District Court judge had refused to dismiss a proceeding brought by Selim Zizovski (the first respondent) against NRMA Insurance as third party insurer. The appeal concerned the judge's alleged error in failing to determine a separate question.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal was required from the District Court's interlocutory order. The applicant also contended that the District Court judge erred by failing to determine a separate question, as contemplated by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

The Supreme Court held that an appeal from an interlocutory order of the District Court lay to the Supreme Court only with leave, pursuant to section 127(2) of the District Court Act 1973. Furthermore, the Court found that the hearing before the District Court judge had only concerned a notice of motion seeking dismissal, and no separate question had been formulated or presented with an appropriate factual basis for determination. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appeal was incompetent.

The Supreme Court dismissed the notice of appeal as incompetent and ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal.