//
[2026] QDC 48
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of Queensland
2026-04-14
Mullins J
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] This is an application by Mr Steven Gander, filed on 24 March 2026, for leave to appeal. The application for leave is brought before this Court because he seeks leave to appeal a costs order made by Judge Barlow KC of this Court on 16 December 2024. The history of that matter and what subsequently followed is set out in my judgment of Gander & Anor v Gander & Anor.[1] As stated there, the costs order appears to have been made on summary dismissal of the application because it failed and because his Honour considered that the circumstances in that case justified the making of the costs order.
[2] There was a process engaged in for assessment of the costs. On 5 September 2025, the respondent filed an application in the proceedings. The proceedings are proceedings by the respondents to this application, Michael and Susan Gander, as applicants for further provision from the estate of their mother. Mr Steven Gander is identified as the executor and respondent in those proceedings but has not taken out probate.
[3] In any event, while the assessment was underway of his Honour's costs order from December 2024, the respondent filed an application on 5 September 2025 to stay or set aside his Honour's orders under r 667 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). Various grounds were set out for the making of that order. I set out the background to that application in my previous judgment.[2]
[4] For the reasons I set out at length[3], engaging with the critiques of his Honour's judgment for a costs order, I concluded that there was no basis on the material put before the Court at that time for the costs order to be set aside. It should be noted that while the determination of that application did not descend into the merits, Mr Gander nonetheless put forward the arguments as to why his Honour's judgment was wrong. I dismissed that application.
[5] Thereafter, I am informed, he sought to appeal his Honour's costs order only. Justice Mullins, I am informed, told Mr Gander that he needed leave under s 118B of the District Court Act 1967 (Qld) to appeal solely in relation to costs. Her Honour was, of course, right in that position.
[6] This application for leave to appeal from his Honour's costs order was filed on the 24 March 2026, some 15 months since the costs order was made and some many months since the assessment occurred. A costs assessor's certificate was issued on the 17 December 2025 for $33,794.18.
[7] Unusually, considering this was Mr Gander's application, Mr Gander sent a series of emails seeking to have the application adjourned. The application for an extension of time only came to the attention of the other party when the court responded to some of his correspondence to both parties. They are here today. Mr Gander has sought an adjournment but has not appeared to seek the adjournment.
[8] There was an exchange about that point from the Registry at my direction on 10 April 2026, last Friday, at 1.31pm from Mr Campbell of the Registry, saying, "We have been advised that if you seek an adjournment, this can be done in Court on Monday, 13 April 2026 based on sworn material unless the other parties' consent to an adjournment. If the other parties' consent to an adjournment, you can email a Form 11 - UCPR - Consent adjournment of application signed by all parties to the matter to this address in order to have it filed and the matter adjourned to a date agreed between the parties." Given that correspondence, there is no evident basis for Mr Gander to not be here.
[9] Mr Gander's grounds for his leave to appeal are set out in his outline, court document 34. I note in response to his explanation for delay in bringing the application that he acted promptly, he says, after the Court of Appeal issued directions requiring filing by 3 March 2026. I am not quite sure what he is referring to there. However, the substantive grounds are procedural fairness grounds. The material in that regard is entirely unpersuasive. I note, also, that those grounds seek to re-agitate matters which I dealt with in my judgment, including whether costs orders can be made against an executor.
[10] This case is one in which the applicants are not continuing to press the proceedings presently because there is a stay in position. There has already been one examination of his Honour's order, which involved two hearings before judges of this Court and resulted in a substantial judgment. To now, this long after the costs order was made and has been assessed, bring an application for leave to appeal and then not appear to press that in circumstances where such material as before the Court is entirely unpersuasive, it seems to me, is conduct inconsistent with the obligations under r 5 UCPR.
[11] This is a small matter which is incurring disproportionate costs. For all those reasons, I dismiss the application for leave to appeal Judge Barlow KC's costs order and I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application fixed at $1,000 from the date of filing, 24 March 2026.
[1] [2025] QDC 139 (Gander v Gander).
[3] Gander v Gander, see from [24] on.
Gander & Anor
Gander & Anor [2026] QDC 48