Flowers v Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner

This matter concerned an appeal against interlocutory decisions made by Stein J in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Mr Flowers, sought to appeal the dismissal of two applications: first, an application to prohibit the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner from defending a judicial review concerning the re-opening of dismissed complaints from 2013 and 2015, which the appellant alleged were affected by bias within the Commissioner's office; and second, applications seeking injunctions to preserve records of his wife's former solicitor for the period 2007 to 2015, which he contended were necessary for the judicial review and potential future proceedings.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether Stein J had jurisdiction to determine the interlocutory applications, particularly given her prior recusal from the main judicial review, and whether leave to appeal was required for the various grounds of appeal. The appellant also contended that the dismissal of his applications constituted an abuse of discretion and a violation of procedural fairness and natural justice, alleging discriminatory practices and the improper preservation of evidence.

The Full Court held that Stein J did have jurisdiction to determine the interlocutory applications, as no application for her disqualification from those specific applications had been made. The Court noted that while most of the orders under appeal were interlocutory, an exception to the requirement for leave to appeal applied under s 50(5)(c) of the *Supreme Court Act 1935* (SA) to the refusal of relief in the nature of an injunction. For other interlocutory orders, leave to appeal was required under r 213.1(1)(c) of the *Uniform Civil Rules 2020* (SA). The Court did not comment on the merits of the appeal itself, as the appellant had advised the Court of a separate appeal concerning Stein J's refusal to disqualify herself.