Gander v Gander - [2025] QDC 139

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gander & Anor v Gander & Anor [2025] QDC 139

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JOHN GANDER (UNDER PART IV, SECTIONS 40-44, SUCCESSION ACT 1981)

(First Applicant)

And

SUSAN COURTNEY GANDER (UNDER PART IV, SECTIONS 40-44, SUCCESSION ACT 1981)

(Second Applicant)

v

STEVEN GANDER (AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF BRIDGET GANDER DECEASED)
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

2062/24

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Friday 26 September 2025 (on the papers)

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDER:

1. The application filed 5 September 2025 to set aside the costs order made by Barlow DCJ on 16 December 2024 be dismissed.

2. The respondent Steven Gander pay the applicants’ costs of that application.

The factual and procedural background

On 26 July 2024, the applicants filed an originating application under s. 41(1) Succession Act 1981 (Qld) for further provision out of the estate of their mother Bridget Gander, who died on 28 October 2023. Although no grant of representation has been made to the respondent, he has been made the respondent as personal representative under the deceased’s will. The parties appear to have proceeded thereafter on that basis. The respondent is the son of the deceased.
On 31 October 2024, the respondent applied for summary dismissal of the originating application. The application for summary dismissal was heard by Barlow KC DCJ on 16 December 2024. The gravamen of the respondent’s submission was that the proceedings should be dismissed as an abuse of process because there were no funds in the estate out of which provision could be made and further that the applicants did not show relevant need. The gravamen of the applicants’ submission was that there was a dispute on the evidence as to the assets of the estate and so summary dismissal was not justified.
His Honour dismissed the application for summary dismissal. He also ordered that the proceeding be stayed until further order and that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application (the costs order). No appeal was brought against those orders.
No party has referred me to reasons given by his Honour on 16 December 2024. However, on the submissions put before his Honour, his Honour’s orders seem correct. Summary dismissal of a family provision application will not ordinarily occur where there are disputed facts material to the basis of dismissal. Further, there is nothing unusual about an order that costs follow the event, even allowing for the particular issues which can sometimes arise on costs orders in family provision cases.
On 9 July 2025, the applicants served a costs statement on the respondent. On around 31 July 2025, the respondent filed and served objections to the costs statement. The objections dealt in part with the issues raised on the costs statement but also reiterated the respondent’s contention that the estate was insolvent. The objections were supported by an affidavit which went well beyond any issue legally relevant to the objections. The affidavit,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gander v Gander and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QDC 139
Decision Date: 3 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gander v Gander, the parties were engaged in a dispute concerning property and financial matters, including the distribution of assets and ongoing financial obligations. The matter was heard by the Family Court of Australia, with Barlow DCJ presiding over the proceedings.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the costs order made by Barlow DCJ on 16 December 2024 was appropriate and if the application to set aside that costs order, filed on 5 September 2025, should be granted. The court also had to consider whether the applicant, who had filed the application to set aside the costs order, was entitled to reimbursement of the costs associated with that application.

Barlow DCJ dismissed the application to set aside the costs order, finding that the order was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds warranting the setting aside of the costs order. The court also concluded that the applicant was not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of the application to set aside the costs order and ordered that the respondent, Steven Gander, pay the costs of that application.

The court's decision was grounded in the principles of fairness and the discretion afforded to the court in making costs orders. The court found that the costs order made by Barlow DCJ was proportionate to the proceedings and the conduct of the parties. The dismissal of the application to set aside the costs order and the order for the respondent to pay the costs of the application were in line with the court's powers and the principles of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application filed 5 September 2025 to set aside the costs order made by Barlow DCJ on 16 December 2024 be dismissed.

2. The respondent Steven Gander pay the applicants’ costs of that application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Gander & Anor v Gander & Anor [2025] QDC 139
PARTIES:	MICHAEL JOHN GANDER (UNDER PART IV, SECTIONS 40-44, SUCCESSION ACT 1981) (First Applicant) And SUSAN COURTNEY GANDER (UNDER PART IV, SECTIONS 40-44, SUCCESSION ACT 1981) (Second Applicant) v STEVEN GANDER (AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF BRIDGET GANDER DECEASED) (Respondent)
FILE NO:	2062/24
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Friday 26 September 2025 (on the papers)
JUDGE:	Porter KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application filed 5 September 2025 to set aside the costs order made by Barlow DCJ on 16 December 2024 be dismissed. 2. The respondent Steven Gander pay the applicants’ costs of that application.