Steicke v Pederick

This matter concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia from an interlocutory decision of a Master. The applicant, Ms Steicke, had engaged the respondents, a firm of solicitors, to represent her in long-running Family Court proceedings between 2008 and 2011. Despite receiving itemised invoices and paying the majority of fees and disbursements, Ms Steicke later disputed the respondents' costs. Approximately three years after the retainer ended, Ms Steicke filed an application to tax the respondents' costs. This application was filed on the second day of a Family Court trial concerning the respondents' lien over their files. Ms Steicke also sought an adjournment of the Family Court trial based on this application, which was unsuccessful.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether permission to appeal should be granted, and in relation to an interlocutory application made by Ms Steicke, whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence on the appeal. The test for admitting further evidence on appeal requires that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the original proceedings, would have had an important influence on the result, and is credible, with a real possibility of an opposite outcome had it been before the court at first instance. The Court also considered the public interest in the finality of litigation, particularly where the evidence sought to be adduced relates to matters that occurred before the hearing at first instance.

The Court reasoned that the Master's decision not to grant an extension of time for Ms Steicke to particularise her complaints regarding the respondents' costs was not plainly unreasonable. The Master had considered the lengthy history of the proceedings, the need for finality, and Ms Steicke's failure to particularise her complaints or provide evidence for her delay, even after consent orders intended to provide a final opportunity. The Court found that the Master had applied the correct legal principles and had not erred in exercising his discretion.

Consequently, the Court refused Ms Steicke permission to appeal.