M.B.P. (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic

The applicant, M.B.P. (SA) Pty Ltd, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The respondent, Mr. Gogic, did not appear to oppose the application. The applicant offered an undertaking to pay the costs of the appeal and not to interfere with the order for costs made in favour of the respondent in the Full Court.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the competency of an appeal from the answers given by the Full Court to questions posed in a case stated. This issue was complicated by the precedent set in *Fisher v Fisher*, which suggested that an appeal from such answers was incompetent. The applicant sought to reargue the question decided in *Cullen v Trappell*, which appeared to be the underlying substantive issue.

Deane J indicated that the Court considered the question involved to be one that justified the attention of the Full Court. However, the Court noted the difficulty presented by *Fisher v Fisher*. The applicant's counsel explained that the trial judge had determined all matters except the question of interest, which was then the subject of a case stated to the Full Court. Following the Full Court's answers, the matter returned to the trial judge for final orders, including an award of interest. The applicant's counsel also disclosed that the respondent had appealed the quantum of interest awarded, though not the principles applied. The applicant argued that despite the procedural complexities and the existing precedent, the Court should hear the matter, as courts in South Australia were awaiting guidance on awards of interest.