Proposed changes to Queensland’s court system could fundamentally alter the landscape of commercial litigation for businesses with disputes in the $750,000 to $1.5 million range. If you have a significant commercial dispute on foot, or think one is coming, you need to understand what is changing, why it matters, and how to position yourself before proceedings are commenced.
The Reform: What Is Changing
The Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 was introduced into the Queensland Parliament on 4 March 2026 by Attorney-General Deborah Frecklington. The Bill was referred to the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee, which tabled its Report No. 30 on 17 April 2026. As at May 2026, the Bill is awaiting debate in the Legislative Assembly.
The centrepiece reform for commercial litigants is an amendment to section 68 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967. The amendment doubles the District Court’s civil monetary jurisdiction from $750,000 to $1,500,000.
This is the most significant expansion of the District Court’s civil jurisdiction in recent memory. The previous $750,000 limit had not been substantially revised in over two decades. When it takes effect, any civil claim for a sum up to $1.5 million will fall within the District Court’s jurisdiction as a matter of course.
For context: claims for amounts between $750,001 and $1,500,000 currently must be brought in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Once this legislation passes, they will default to the District Court.
That shift has profound practical and financial consequences.
Why Court Selection Is Now a Strategic Decision
Costs Recovery: The Sting in the Tail
The most significant practical impact of this change is on costs recovery.
In Queensland, party-party costs are recovered according to a scale set out in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR). The scale applicable to the District Court (Schedules 3K and 3L) recovers approximately 10 to 25 per cent of a party’s actual legal costs. The Supreme Court operates on a more generous scale.
The Queensland Law Society, in its submission to the committee, expressed broad support for the jurisdictional increase. However, it raised a pointed concern: successful parties in the District Court litigating claims between $750,000 and $1.5 million will recover significantly less of their costs than they would have under the current regime in the Supreme Court.
The Australian Lawyers Alliance was more direct, opposing the amendment unless accompanied by “corresponding reform to costs recovery frameworks and a commitment to provide additional judicial and administrative resources.” Without costs reform, it argued, the proposal “risks reducing access to justice, particularly for individuals pursuing complex” claims.
Those concerns have not, as yet, resulted in any commitment to amend the UCPR costs scales in tandem with the jurisdictional increase.
What this means in practice: A business that wins a $1.2 million commercial dispute in the District Court under the new regime may recover only $120,000 to $300,000 of its actual legal costs from the other side. In the Supreme Court, that recovery would be materially higher. The gap can easily reach six figures on a contested commercial matter.
Trial Listing and Procedural Differences
There are potential advantages to the District Court that should be weighed against the costs recovery concern.
Listing times. The District Court has historically offered shorter trial listing times than the Supreme Court for commercial matters. If your dispute is time-sensitive or the defendant is a financially fragile business, a faster path to judgment may be commercially critical.
Proportionality. The District Court is a competent, experienced court for commercial disputes. For claims without complex equitable components, it is a perfectly appropriate forum. Supreme Court commercial litigation involves a more demanding pre-trial regime; the District Court’s procedures may be more proportionate for straightforward money claims.
What the Bill Also Includes: Enforcement Powers for District and Magistrates Courts
The Bill does not stop at jurisdiction. It also amends the Civil Proceedings Act 2011, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 and the UCPR to empower the District Court and Magistrates Court to issue enforcement warrants containing charging orders and stop orders.
Previously, these enforcement mechanisms were available only through the Supreme Court. A charging order secures a judgment debt against the debtor’s property; a stop order prevents dealings with that property while the charge is registered.
Extending these tools to the District and Magistrates Courts is a meaningful practical improvement. A business holding a District Court judgment will no longer need a separate Supreme Court application to secure property-based enforcement, reducing both cost and delay in enforcement proceedings.
Forum Strategy: The Questions You Should Be Asking
If you are considering commencing proceedings for a commercial claim in the $750,000 to $1.5 million range, the following questions now matter.
Is there a basis to invoke Supreme Court jurisdiction regardless of the claim amount?
The Supreme Court retains unlimited civil jurisdiction. Even after the District Court’s jurisdictional limit increases, the Supreme Court remains available. The key is whether your claim has a feature that makes it appropriate for the Supreme Court: injunctive relief, freezing orders, complex equitable remedies, a counterclaim or cross-claim that pushes the total above $1.5 million, or significant questions of law.
If you need urgent interlocutory relief, including a Mareva order or an Anton Piller order, you will be in the Supreme Court regardless of the quantum of your underlying claim.
What are the realistic costs under each scale?
Before commencing proceedings, your solicitor should model the costs exposure and potential recovery under both the District Court and Supreme Court scales. The difference may be decisive.
Which court does the defendant prefer, and why?
A defendant facing a $1.2 million claim will generally prefer the District Court under the new regime. Lower adverse costs exposure on a loss means less financial risk. Plaintiffs need to be aware that defendants may vigorously resist any attempt to keep the matter in the Supreme Court, precisely because the stakes on costs are lower.
Is your claim structured to preserve forum choice?
The way a claim is framed affects which court is the natural forum. A plaintiff with a $950,000 debt claim should consider whether there are equitable or injunctive components that properly belong in the Supreme Court. Getting legal advice on claim structure before proceedings are commenced is essential.
The Bottom Line for Queensland Business Owners
This reform is being positioned as an access-to-justice measure: bringing mid-range commercial disputes into a court that is more accessible and faster. There is something to that. But the costs recovery concern is real, and it has not been addressed.
For Queensland businesses with commercial disputes in the newly expanded range, the practical reality is this: you may win your case and still be significantly out of pocket on costs if your dispute is heard in the District Court. That is not a reason to avoid litigation, but it is a reason to take forum choice seriously and to factor it into your settlement strategy from the outset.
The law is changing. Your approach needs to change with it.
Practical Takeaways
- If you have a commercial dispute approaching $750,000, get advice now on whether to commence proceedings before or after the new jurisdiction limit takes effect.
- Do not assume the District Court is cheaper. Lower filing fees are more than offset by reduced costs recovery if you win.
- Preserve your access to the Supreme Court by considering whether your claim has equitable, injunctive, or other features that justify commencing there.
- Model your costs exposure under both the District Court and Supreme Court scales before deciding where to sue.
- Defendants should consider their options. The expanded District Court jurisdiction reduces your adverse costs exposure on a loss. Forum selection is now a legitimate tactical consideration.
- Factor costs recovery into settlement strategy. If you are likely to end up in the District Court, that affects the economics of settlement at every stage.
Get Expert Advice Before Commencing Proceedings
Forum selection is one of the most consequential decisions in commercial litigation. Get it wrong and you may recover far less than you spent.
Boss Lawyers acts for Queensland businesses in commercial disputes across all levels of the court system. We provide clear, strategic advice on claim structuring, forum selection, and costs management from day one.
Contact Mark Harley, Principal Phone: 1300 267 711 Web: bosslawyers.com.au Level 27, Santos Place, 32 Turbot Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
The information in this article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain specific advice in relation to your own circumstances before taking any action.
Facing a commercial dispute? Early legal advice is essential. Our commercial litigation lawyers Brisbane provide strategic advice from initial dispute assessment through to trial or negotiated resolution. Call Boss Lawyers on 1300 267 711.
Disclaimer: This is general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain professional advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action. For advice on your specific situation, contact Boss Lawyers on 1300 267 711.
