Holmes v Jefferis (No 2)

In *Holmes v Jefferis (No 2)*, the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an appeal by a physiotherapist (the applicant) against a decision of the master regarding an application for a summary order for an account against a bookkeeper (the respondent). The physiotherapist sought the order primarily on the basis that the bookkeeper had admitted to being an accounting party. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the physiotherapist had established a sufficient basis for an account to be ordered before trial, particularly in light of contested factual matters.

The legal issues before the Court concerned the appropriate costs orders to be made following the unsuccessful summary judgment application and subsequent appeals. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the general rule that costs follow the event should apply, or if a different approach was warranted given the partial success of one party and the interlocutory nature of the proceedings. The physiotherapist argued for a costs order where parties bear their own costs, contending that the bookkeeper had only succeeded on some grounds and that the ultimate outcome of the trial remained uncertain.

The Court reasoned that the physiotherapist's application for a summary order for an account had failed because she had not established that the bookkeeper was liable to account at that stage, nor had she demonstrated that anything was owed. The Court found that a trial would likely be necessary to resolve the underlying factual disputes, rendering a pre-trial accounting order inappropriate and lacking utility. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no proper basis for the physiotherapist's unsuccessful application before the master, and she ought to pay the costs of that application.

Regarding the costs of the appeals, the Court found that the physiotherapist's arguments for a departure from the general rule were not persuasive. The Court noted that the physiotherapist had conceded on appeal that the scope of the account was limited, and that a conventional trial would likely resolve the existence and amount of any shortfall. Therefore, the Court ordered that the physiotherapist pay the costs of the appeals.