Merrick, A.V. v Australian Red Cross Society and Ors Johnson, H.E v Australian Red Cross Society and Ors

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Full Court considered applications for leave to appeal from the interlocutory decision of Wilcox J. in two related cases, G749 and G755. The applicants, Allen Vincent Merrick and Holly Emma Johnson, sought damages from the Australian Red Cross Society and other respondents for various causes of action, including negligence and breaches of the Trade Practices Act. The respondents sought to strike out parts of the statements of claim and have certain issues determined as preliminary questions before the trial. Wilcox J. dismissed these motions, leading to the current applications for leave to appeal.
The legal issues before the Full Court were whether Wilcox J.'s decision to not determine the preliminary questions before the trial was an error of principle or law, and whether leave to appeal should be granted. The Full Court noted that the decision to determine preliminary questions is a matter for the trial judge's discretion, which should not be lightly interfered with. The Full Court found that Wilcox J. had not erred in exercising his discretion and that there was no sufficient ground to interfere with his decision. The Full Court emphasised the importance of maintaining a tight rein on interlocutory appeals to avoid unnecessary delays and cost increases.

The Full Court refused the applications for leave to appeal, with costs. The reasoning of the Full Court was that Wilcox J. had a broad discretion in determining when to address the preliminary questions and that there was no demonstrated error in his decision. The Full Court upheld the interlocutory decision of Wilcox J., finding that it was not appropriate to interfere with his exercise of discretion in this matter.