Mitreski v His Eminence Metropolitan Petar the Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand

The appeal concerned a dispute between the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand and its members. The applicants sought leave to appeal from orders made by Young CJ in Eq, and also sought to renew an application for leave to appeal from orders made by Hamilton J. The core of the dispute revolved around the effect of a determination of separate questions by the trial judge and whether that determination had improperly foreclosed issues in the proceedings or failed to afford procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the reasons provided by the trial judge in answering the separate questions went beyond the scope of those questions, thereby precluding further aspects of the hearing at first instance. It also had to consider whether the trial judge had failed to answer many of the questions posed, leaving them live for further litigation. Furthermore, the court considered whether the answers given to the separate questions would preclude evidence being led in the remainder of the hearing, and whether any orders or declarations made below were interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the answers given to the separate questions did not preclude any aspect of the further hearing at first instance and that any unanswered questions remained live in the litigation. Consequently, there was no need to invoke the appellate jurisdiction to address these matters. The court also found that the orders and declarations made below were not interlocutory in nature.

The summons for leave to appeal from the orders of Young CJ in Eq was dismissed. The application to renew the application for leave to appeal from the orders of Hamilton J was refused. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the respondents and the Attorney-General in relation to both the summons and the application for leave to renew.