Can I file a rule 208D UCPR preliminary disclosure application in the Magistrates Court or District Court in Queensland?

There is ongoing confusion about where an application for preliminary disclosure under rule 208D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) may be filed in Queensland. Many resources state that such applications must be brought in the Supreme Court of Queensland. That assumption comes from the way the rules were originally drafted and the fact that the few reported decisions on the rule are from the Supreme Court.

The author is only aware of two Queensland decisions that consider rule 208D: Fairman v Jonelca Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 40 and Blue Dog Group Pty Ltd v Glaucus Research Group California LLC [2024] QSC 37. Both are Supreme Court matters, which reinforces why practitioners have treated the rule as confined to that jurisdiction.

There is a lack of clarity on this point. No one appears to have looked at the legislative history and explained why the assumption is wrong. The idea that preliminary disclosure applications under rule 208D are limited to the Supreme Court is in fact a myth.

When the preliminary disclosure provisions were introduced, rule 208A expressly stated that the part applied only to the Supreme Court. That restriction shaped practice and commentary.

HOWEVER on 1 May 2024, rule 208A (which said the preliminary disclosure rules applied in the Supreme Court only) was repealed by 2021 SL No. 4 s 22, ie Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation 2024

The Explanatory Note to that amending legislation explains that rule 208A was repeal to:

So in layman terms, this means rule 208A used to say that you could only go to the Supreme Court to get preliminary disclosure. Then in 2024, the legislature deleted this clause, and expressly said they did this so you could get preliminary disclosure in the District and Magistrates Courts.

For some reason, people are still stuck on what rule 208A used to say. But it is long gone now, and there is a clear explanation from the legislature with the green light to use the rules in inferior courts.

Other jurisdictional boundaries would still apply, of course. So if a dispute involves equity or another matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then you couldn't apply an inferior court and use r 208D to trojan horse your way into inferior courts. However, if the dispute falls within the monetary and subject matter limits of the District Court or Magistrates Court (as applicable), the application may be filed in those courts, for sure. Again, the Explanatory Note to the 2024 amendment gives the 'green light' for this.

(The author notes the Explanatory Note says nothing about QCAT or other forums in Queensland, so would read this to mean that rule 208D applications remain for Qld courts only, and does not extend to tribunals.)

Why would you want to file in an inferior court and not the Supreme Court?

For starters, if you file in the wrong court (or there's a better court) you run the risk of the matter being transferred, with costs attached. If the underlying dispute is a straightforward debt recovery claim or another matter well within the Magistrates Court’s limits, it makes sense to file there. The process is simpler and the filing fees are at the lower end of the scale, compared with the higher fees in the Supreme Court. So having the option to bring a preliminary disclosure application in the Magistrates Court or District Court gives parties a more proportionate and cost-effective way to obtain information before starting proceedings.

Conclusion

In short, a party seeking preliminary disclosure under rule 208D UCPR in Queensland does not always have to be filed in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The repeal of rule 208A and the Explanatory Note to the amending legislation make it clear that such applications may be filed in the Magistrates Court or District Court, subject to the usual jurisdictional rules.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult qualified Australian counsel regarding your specific arrangements. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

‍