Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited v Kowalski

Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited (MMAL) sought to appeal a decision of the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) which had granted permission to a Mr Kowalski to commence proceedings against MMAL. Mr Kowalski was seeking workers' compensation. The core of the dispute concerned MMAL's standing to appeal the SAET's decision, which had been made ex parte. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was required to determine whether the SAET's decision constituted a "judgment or order" for the purposes of appeal.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether an order made under section 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) granting permission to commence proceedings against a third party constituted a "judgment or order" as defined by section 50(6) of that Act, and consequently, whether MMAL, as a proposed defendant, had standing to appeal such an order. The Court also considered the nature of section 88H of the Return to Work Corporation Act 2014 (SA), which grants the Tribunal power to amend or set aside judgments or orders in the interests of justice.

The Court reasoned that an order made under section 39 of the Supreme Court Act, while interlocutory, was not a mere incidental ruling. It significantly altered the legal capacity of the person against whom it was made by removing their protection from suit, and therefore qualified as a "judgment or order" under section 50(6). The Court further held that proposed defendants, such as MMAL, were "persons aggrieved" by such an order because they lost the privilege from suit they previously enjoyed, thus conferring standing to appeal. The Court noted that this interpretation served good legal policy, allowing for the correction of potential errors made during ex parte applications and preventing unnecessary litigation by requiring permission for appeals against interlocutory decisions.

The Full Court concluded that MMAL had standing to appeal the SAET's decision.