Steicke v Pederick

Steicke v Pederick is a case that concerns an application by the applicant to reinstate proceedings that had been dismissed by a self-executing order. The self-executing order was a consent order. The applicant sought orders to refer the matter to mediation or, alternatively, for an extension of time to comply with particular orders made on 28 February 2018. The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the Court had the discretion to vary a consent order and, if so, how that discretion should be applied in respect of a self-executing order. The court held that the discretion should not be exercised in favour of the applicant. The court found that the orders which the applicant sought to vary were made by consent and that a consent order operates both as a contract and an order of the court. The court found that there was no ground for setting aside the consent order and that to accede to the application would be to deprive the respondent of the benefit of the contract which underlay the consent order. The court held that the discretion should not be exercised in favour of the applicant because to do so would be to interfere with the real contract between the parties. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application. The court held that the applicant had acted unreasonably in continuing to prosecute the proceedings despite numerous orders and directions from the court. The court found that the applicant had wasted the court's time and that the respondents were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis. The court held that the costs should be paid by the applicant and not by the respondents because the applicant had acted unreasonably in continuing to prosecute the proceedings despite numerous orders and directions from the court. The court held that the applicant had wasted the court's time and that the respondents were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis. The court held that the costs should be paid by the applicant and not by the respondents because the applicant had acted unreasonably in continuing to prosecute the proceedings despite numerous orders and directions from the court.