Often when an Applicant first institutes proceedings, they have difficulty in knowing which jurisdiction is the correct one to file in. The inability of not knowing exactly what the Applicant and other Applicants may be awarded at the conclusion of proceedings is a problem that inherently impacts upon the question of Jurisdiction. This is because it is uncertain as to whether the monetary limitations of the Court’s jurisdiction applies to each Applicant separately or if the value received by all applicant’s is to be treated cumulatively.

In the matter of Danckert & Ors v Holmes [2021] QDC 6 (Danckert), the District Court considered a Family Provision Claim bought by three Applicant’s against the Estate of their Deceased Father.

The testator passed away on 7 December 2019, leaving an estate worth $2.3 million. He was survived by four children. He appointed his son David as executor of the Estate, left a pecuniary gift to his other son Michael, a minor gift of jewellery to his niece, the bulk of the estate to David, and he excluded his two daughters, Patricia and Diane entirely.

Patricia and Dianne filed an application in the District Court seeking further provision from the estate. Subsequently, Michael also filed an application by election also seeking a further provision from the Estate.

A compromise of the Estate was reached and an agreement entered into totalling $930,000, with Michael to receive $480,000, Patricia to receive $275,000 and Diane to receive $175,000. The Executor sort final orders confirming the compromise and the issue of the monetary limitation was raised.

Under s68 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 the monetary limit of the District Court is set at $750,000. The Total amount of the compromise reached between the parties exceeded this amount. Was it appropriate to view the Court’s monetary limit as applicable to the total amount, or to the amount that each individual Applicant was to receive?

The court applied Remote Data Systems P/L & Ors v Hoover & Ors [2000] QCA 116 a case in which “the Court of Appeal considered the jurisdictional limit in section 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act”.[1]

In that matter “[t]he Court adopted the approach that the proceedings encompassed five separate claims and five separate judgments. It was necessary to separately identify each judgment and apply section 118 to that judgment to decide if an appeal lay as of right or by leave. It is not appropriate to add the together the amounts to ascertain the total”.[2]

In making this decision, the Court of Appeal considered the decision of the High Court in Uittenbroek v Briggs (1906) 103 CLR 175, where the Honourable Court held “that it is not permissible to add together two distinct amounts relative to independent claims by separate plaintiffs even though those claims were properly combined in the one action resulting in the entry of one judgment.”[3]

Accordingly, in Danckert the court found that while there was one proceeding, “it is a proceeding for the determination of three separate claims”.[4] The orders sort were given.

And so the question was answered by the Court and will serve as great assistance to any future Family Provision Applicants.

[1] Danckert & Ors v Holmes [2021] QDC 6, [4].

[2] Remote Data Systems P/L & Ors v Hoover & Ors [2000] QCA 116, [6].

[3] Ibid.

[4] Danckert, [5].