Ruling also rejects attempt to adjourn hearing of appeal doomed to fail
The Supreme Court of Queensland’s Court of Appeal has deemed it appropriate for the respondent to suggest an independent executor to handle the appellant’s claim that she was entitled to transfer a deceased woman’s property to herself as beneficial owner.
In Jordan v Jordan [2025] QCA 235, the woman died on 29 April 2023, leaving a modest estate, the most significant asset of which was a South Ripley house registered in her name.
The appellant, the granddaughter of the deceased, valued the house at $650,000. The respondent, the daughter of the deceased, acquired an appraisal suggesting an asset value ranging from $730,000 to $750,000.
In her will, the deceased appointed the appellant as estate executor and trustee, gifted the sum of $70,000 to the appellant’s two children upon them turning 21 years old, and gave the appellant the residuary estate. The will included no provision for the respondent.
The court granted the appellant probate of the will on 22 August 2023. She transferred the house into her own name on 26 September 2023.
The appellant’s solicitors gave the respondent a 24 November 2023 written undertaking not to sell or encumber the property without notifying the respondent at least 14 days beforehand.
On 19 January 2024, before the Supreme Court, the respondent filed a family provision application relating to the estate.
The appellant ended the retainer of the solicitors who had represented her in the family provision proceeding. On 12 March 2025, she told the respondent’s solicitors that she was holding the house, which was not an estate asset, under a constructive trust as its equitable owner.
In the family provision proceeding, the respondent’s 23 April 2025 application sought the revocation of the grant of probate to the appellant, her removal as executor, and the appointment of an independent solicitor as estate administrator.
The respondent alleged conflict of interest on the part of the appellant because her claim that she held the property on a constructive trust for herself conflicted with her executor’s duty to collect the estate assets.
On 20 May 2025, the appellant purported to ‘resign’ her executorship and trusteeship and appoint a non-lawyer as trustee, which he supposedly accepted. The non-lawyer, who received leave to appear as a friend of the court, sought to adjourn the application.
On 26 May 2025, the primary judge refused to adjourn. The judge issued the respondent’s requested orders to appoint the independent solicitor as administrator and grant letters of administration, subject to the registrar’s formal requirements.
The appellant appealed the judge’s 26 May 2025 orders, including the refusal to adjourn. She wanted to set aside the administrator’s appointment of the administrator and remit the respondent’s application to the trial division for a rehearing with the proper procedural safeguards.
On 17 November 2025, the date scheduled for the appeal hearing, the self-represented appellant was unable to appear due to illness. That morning, the person holding her enduring power of attorney emailed the registry regarding the appellant’s incapacity and his own illness and inability to appear.
The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the appeal with costs and denied the application for the adjournment of the appeal hearing. The appeal court characterised the appeal as incapable of success and doomed to fail.
The appeal court ruled that disposing of the appeal and preventing the estate from further erosion through costs orders in the respondent’s favour during an adjournment would serve the appellant’s interest.
The appeal court found it appropriate for the respondent to seek an independent executor’s appointment for the family provision application.
The appeal court held that:
The appeal court noted that the appellant’s removal as executor and the independent solicitor’s appointment as administrator did not determine the issue of whether the appellant was the equitable owner of the house.
