Flowers v Finlayson

The case involved Mr Flowers, who sought to appeal decisions made by a Master, the Chief Justice, and Parker J concerning an application for the adjudication of legal costs paid to Mr Finlayson, a legal practitioner. Mr Flowers had engaged Mr Finlayson in Family Court proceedings in 2014, and a dispute arose regarding the terms of the retainer and the costs charged. Mr Flowers subsequently filed an application for adjudication of these costs, which was made out of time.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Mr Flowers had a right to appeal the Master's decision to grant or refuse an extension of time for the adjudication of costs, whether leave to appeal the Chief Justice's decision should be granted, and whether Parker J's orders for written submissions were appealable. The central legal issues revolved around the nature of the decisions made by the lower courts and the criteria for granting leave to appeal interlocutory or procedural matters.

The Court reasoned that the Master's decision to refuse an extension of time for the adjudication of costs was an interlocutory decision, meaning an appeal against it required leave from a single judge of the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeal directly. Consequently, Mr Flowers' application for leave to appeal the Master's decision to the Court of Appeal was deemed incompetent. Regarding the Chief Justice's decision, the Court found no identified error and concluded that the case did not present the rare circumstances necessary to grant leave to appeal a decision concerning practice and procedure, particularly in matters of costs. Furthermore, Parker J's orders were characterised as incidental directions rather than appealable judgments, rendering the appeal against them incompetent.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal struck out Mr Flowers' application for leave to appeal against the Master's decision and his appeal against Parker J's orders. The application for leave to appeal against the Chief Justice's decision was refused.