A high-stakes $2.3 million legal battle involving South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas has taken an unexpected turn, just one month after a judge threw out the initial civil claim against him. The long-running, acrimonious dispute traces back to blackmail charges filed against former state lawmaker Annabel Digance and her husband Greg, which were ultimately dropped before going to trial. Digance, a one-time Labor Party colleague of Malinauskas, launched the damages suit over what she alleges was Malinauskas’ malicious role in the aborted prosecution that led to the charges against her and her spouse.
Last month, South Australia’s Supreme Court Associate Justice Graham Dart dismissed the civil case entirely, ruling that Digance’s claims against the premier lacked any “reasonable basis” to proceed. Following that ruling, Malinauskas publicly embraced the court’s decision, framing it as a vindication for ethical governance. “I knew at the time that when I reported the matter to police it would set in train a sequence of events that was beyond my control, and it would be very public and there would be difficult days associated with that politically,” Malinauskas said in his post-ruling statement. “I am particularly grateful for the court decision because I think it sends a clear message to people in any position of responsibility that there is nothing to fear in doing the right thing.”
But Digance immediately signaled the fight was not over, warning the dispute remained “far from resolved” and confirming plans to challenge the dismissal. This week, that challenge moved forward, with a new procedural hearing at the Supreme Court locking in next steps for the appeal. Neither Malinauskas nor Digance appeared in person for the short administrative hearing, overseen by Justice Mark Livesey. Livesey set an August deadline for both legal teams to submit their formal written arguments to the court. Court documents confirm Digance’s appeal will be built on four distinct legal grounds, including a reference to “unidentified evidence” that was not considered in the initial dismissal. The full details of these appeal grounds were not debated during this week’s procedural session. The case has now been adjourned for the full appeal listing, scheduled to open on Monday, September 14, bringing the high-profile political legal saga back into the public spotlight later this year.