Byfield v Crane (No. 2)

[2025] QDC 155

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Byfield v Crane (No. 2) [2025] QDC 155

PARTIES:

CAROL ANNE BYFIELD

(Applicant)

v

JAMES CLAPHAM CRANE

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

 2058/22

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2025 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

17 October 2025

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   The stay order made by Judge Porter KC on 10 October 2025 is discharged.

APPEARANCES:

The applicant appeared in person.

No appearance by the respondent.

1. On the 10^th of October 2025, I heard and determined an application by the applicant Ms Byfield for further provision from the estate of her mother.  I gave ex tempore reasons which I published on 14 October 2025. I finished the hearing and gave reasons and made orders about 2.00pm on that day. These reasons should be read with those reasons: [2025] QDC 142. That judgment addresses the reason I proceeded in the absence of the executor on that day.

2. An email was sent to the Supreme and District Court Client Communications Unit email address at 3.00pm on 10 October 2025, that is, maybe an hour or so after I gave my reasons and made orders.  In that email, Mr Crane, (I assume, because I have no certain knowledge that it came from him, except that it appears to be) sent this email: 

   My apologies for not being present today as I only received notification today in the mail 

   As I am in Cairns it is impossible for me to be present in Brisbane today 

   I would like to ask the court indulgence to place another hearing in 3 weeks and if the court could let me know at least 3 days prior thank you for your patience  

   Yours kindly 

   J C Crane 

3. Ms Byfield had given notice of the hearing that was to occur on 10 October by post to that address.  She swore it was sent on 1 of October 2025.  It struck me as odd if that was correct (and I had no reason to doubt it) that the notification would only have been received on the 10^th and that an email would only be sent at 3.00pm on 10 October.  My Associate was forwarded that email.  At my direction, he sent an email to Mr Crane, copied to Ms Byfield, Ms McMillan, who had appeared for O’Connor Law, and Mr Carey, who appears today.  I will make that response Exhibit 2 in this matter.

4. That email informed Mr Crane of the orders made.  It told him reasons would be provided as soon as possible, which they were on 14 October 2025.

5. It informed of him of his right to apply to vary or set aside the orders under rule 667 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) relating to circumstances of non-appearance. It required any application and affidavit material to be provided by 4.00pm on 16 October 2025, and I listed the matter for hearing at 11.00am today. It also provided for Mr Crane to provide that material by email to my Associate. At that time, I also stayed my orders of 10 October until further order and gave leave for everyone to attend by video link or telephone. Video link details were provided, including by email to Mr Crane. Nothing has been heard from Mr Crane, nor has any document apparently been filed by him. I will make the electronic file index as of 17 October 2025 Exhibit 3 in this application.

6. That index shows an affidavit of service by Ms Byfield filed 10 October 2025, but nothing from Mr Crane.  Although I would expect to have received his material by email in any event.  In circumstances where I have heard nothing from Mr Crane, I intend to lift the stay order that I made on 10 October 2025.  My reasons record the singular and wrongful lack of engagement by Mr Crane with Ms Byfield’s application over many years.  One would be entitled to be cynical about first hearing from him at 3.00pm on the afternoon when orders were finally made.  Whatever about that, Mr Crane has had an opportunity to challenge those orders, and he has not.

7. I would also emphasise this is a very small estate in the scheme of things. Such estates call for the performance of formal steps with utmost alacrity. Being a litigant in person respondent executor is no excuse for not doing so, even if it is an explanation.   

8. Further, I note, Mr Carey has provided an affidavit confirming directly from the trustee the amount of money that was notified to me on instructions from Ms McMillan on 10 October as available for an order in the estate.  I will make Ms McMillan’s email of the 10 of October Exhibit 4 in the application, in which she confirmed her instructions. I also rely on Mr Carey’s helpful affidavit providing direct evidence from the trustees. 

9. In those circumstances, I order that the stay order made by me on the 10^th of October 2025 be discharged.  The consequence of that, which I make clear for the benefit of the trustees and in the presence of their solicitors, is that orders 1 and 2 of my orders recently published, made on the 10^th of October 2025, should and may be performed.