Steicke v Pederick & Anor

[2019] SASCFC 148

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Interlocutory orders
3. › Permission to appeal
4. › Appeal from Master of Supreme Court
5. › Whether permission required to appeal interlocutory judgment of Master to Full Court
6. › Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), rr 17, 288(1)(a)
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with discretion of court below
4. › House v The King principles
5. › Whether Master acted on wrong principle, was guided by irrelevant considerations, ignored relevant considerations, or result was plainly unreasonable
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Admission of fresh evidence
4. › Whether evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at first instance
5. › Whether evidence would have had important influence on result
6. › Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), r 286
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Consent orders
3. › Nature of consent orders
4. › Whether consent orders operate as contract between parties
5. › Whether ground exists to set aside underlying contract
6. › Self-executing orders
7. › Extension of time for compliance after expiry
8. › Whether interests of justice require extension
9. › Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), r 117

Quick Take

Consent orders containing self-executing provisions are contractual in nature, and a party seeking to vary them must identify a ground that would suffice to render the underlying contract void or voidable. Once a self-executing order has taken effect and proceedings are dismissed, there are no proceedings to stay or refer to mediation absent a retrospective extension of time. The history of proceedings, including frequent changes of solicitors and non-compliance with court orders, is a relevant consideration in assessing the interests of justice on an application for extension of time.