Steirn v Spanko Soulos Legal Services Pty Ltd

The case of Steirn versus Spanko Soulos Legal Services Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Steirn, sought costs incurred from an adjournment in the proceedings. The adjournment was requested by the defendant, Spanko Soulos Legal Services Pty Ltd, at a late stage. The plaintiff argued that the adjournment application should have been refused due to the lateness of the application and the conduct of the defendant's counsel. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the adjournment was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.

The court was tasked with determining whether the adjournment application should have been refused and whether the costs associated with the adjournment should be borne by the defendant. The court examined the relevant provisions of Bar Rule 87(a) and (c) and considered the parties' respective conduct in light of these provisions. The court also took into account the Suitor's Fund certificate granted and any variation made to an earlier order.

In its decision, the court found that the adjournment application was indeed made late, and the defendant's counsel had failed to provide an adequate brief. The court held that the circumstances warranted a departure from the usual order of costs and that the costs of the adjournment should be borne by the defendant. The court also granted a variation to the earlier order to reflect the Suitor's Fund certificate. As a result, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the adjournment.