The case of Chie v Veale NSWSC 1143 was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 2-3 June 2025 and the decision was handed down on 10 October 2025. The case involved David Chie (the plaintiff) seeking further provision from the estate of his deceased mother, Charmaine Mary Joan Chie (Shirley), who passed away on 29 November 2022 at the age of 88. Shirley’s will, made in 2008, left her house and caravan to her son John, and any cash to her other three children, David, Marilyn, and Diane. A crucial part of the will stated that if John predeceased Shirley, the house was to be sold and the proceeds divided among Diane, Marilyn, David, and John’s children.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of the case:
- Case Name: Chie v Veale
- Case Number: 2023/430153
- Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Judges: Williams J
- Hearing Dates: 2-3 June 2025
- Decision Date: 10 October 2025
- Plaintiff: David Keith Chie (son of the deceased)
- Defendant: Maria Victoria Veale (widow of John William Veale, the deceased’s son)
- Deceased: Charmaine Mary Joan Chie (Shirley), aged 88
- Estate Value: Approximately $2,040,000 (house $1,995,000, caravan $4,000, cash $43,915) before costs.
- Key Issue: Whether Shirley’s will made adequate provision for her son David’s proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life.
Background of the case
Shirley passed away in November 2022, leaving behind her son David, her daughter Marilyn, and the son of her deceased daughter Diane. Her will primarily left her house and caravan to her son John, and cash to David, Marilyn, and Diane. A condition in the will stated that if John died before Shirley, the house was to be sold and the proceeds split between Diane, Marilyn, David, and John’s children.
Tragically, John died intestate about four months after Shirley. John’s wife, Vicky, from whom he had been separated for several years, stood to inherit a significant portion of his estate. David, believing his mother’s will had not adequately provided for him, initiated legal proceedings to seek further provision from Shirley’s estate. Marilyn initially supported David’s claim but later withdrew hers. Vicky, as the administrator of John’s estate and the person who had entered into a contract to sell Shirley’s house, opposed David’s claim.
The judgment
Justice Williams of the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled in favour of David, finding that Shirley’s will had not made adequate provision for his proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The court ordered that an additional $450,000 be paid to David from Shirley’s estate, specifically from the proceeds of the sale of the house at 25 Park Road, Bulli. This payment was to be made within 90 days of the court orders or 14 days after the sale of the property, whichever came first.
Reasons for the decision
The court considered several factors under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW):
- David’s Relationship with Shirley: Despite difficulties, David maintained contact with Shirley, visiting her regularly, especially during her hospital stays. The court found David to be a good son who made an effort to maintain their relationship, dismissing Vicky’s claims of David’s lack of contact as improbable.
- David’s Circumstances: At 68 years old, David had significant health issues (heart problems, blood clots, hip and shoulder pain, hernias) and a disability from birth (thalidomide effects) that impacted his employment. He was working as a truck driver but earning barely enough to cover his expenses and wanted to retire. He also had debts to repay and needed funds for repairs to his home.
- Shirley’s Testamentary Intentions: Evidence suggested Shirley intended to benefit John primarily and had explicitly stated to Marilyn that Vicky was to receive nothing. While Shirley’s will didn’t account for John dying before probate, it clearly aimed to exclude Vicky.
- The Estate and Other Beneficiaries: The estate consisted mainly of the Bulli property. The court acknowledged that the burden of the provision for David would fall on John’s estate, and therefore indirectly on Vicky and John’s children. However, considering Vicky’s financial situation and Shirley’s clear intentions, the court found the provision for David was warranted. Vicky was set to receive a substantial amount from John’s estate, despite their estrangement.
The court rejected Vicky’s arguments that David’s financial situation was “opaque” and that he failed to explain certain financial transactions, finding that any shortcomings in his evidence were not intentional. The judge was satisfied that David had genuine needs for retirement, medical expenses, and a contingency fund, which Shirley’s will did not adequately address.
The judge noted that the provision of $450,000 would allow David to retire, afford a more comfortable retirement, and provide a buffer against future medical expenses and life’s uncertainties, without unfairly burdening John’s estate given Shirley’s intentions.
Loopholes and considerations
One potential loophole or complexity arose from John dying intestate after Shirley but before probate. This meant Vicky, as his estranged wife, had a statutory entitlement to a portion of his estate, which indirectly affected how Shirley’s estate was distributed. Shirley’s will did not anticipate this specific sequence of events.
Q&A
- Is it legal for a will to exclude someone from inheriting? Yes, a person can generally choose who inherits their property through their will, as long as they are of sound mind and not under duress. However, certain people (like children) can make a claim for ‘family provision’ if they believe the will hasn’t made adequate provision for them.
- What is a family provision claim? It’s a legal claim made by a ‘eligible person’ (like a child, spouse, or dependant) who believes the deceased person’s will did not make adequate provision for their proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life.
- Who can make a family provision claim in NSW? In NSW, eligible persons include children of the deceased, former spouses, and people who were wholly or partly dependent on the deceased.
- How is ‘adequate provision’ determined? The court looks at various factors, including the claimant’s financial needs, the size of the estate, the relationship between the claimant and the deceased, and the needs of other beneficiaries.
- What if a beneficiary dies before the testator? If a beneficiary dies before the person making the will (the testator), their inheritance might lapse, meaning it doesn’t go to their heirs unless the will specifies otherwise or there’s a legal rule (like ‘kinship’) that applies. In this case, John died after Shirley, but before probate, which led to complications regarding his estate.
- Can an estranged spouse claim from an estate? An estranged spouse might have a claim through their deceased partner’s estate (like Vicky did with John’s), but not directly from the deceased’s will unless they were still a beneficiary.
- What is an intestate estate? An intestate estate is one where the deceased person did not leave a valid will. The law then dictates how the assets are distributed.
- What is a statutory legacy? This is a fixed amount of money that a surviving spouse is entitled to from their deceased partner’s intestate estate in some jurisdictions, before any remaining assets are divided.
- Does the court always consider the wishes of the deceased? The court gives considerable weight to the testator’s intentions, especially if they were capable and considered the claims on their estate. However, this can be overridden if the court finds the provision made was inadequate.
- Can a court change a will? Yes, through a family provision order, a court can alter the distribution of an estate if it finds the original will made inadequate provision for an eligible person.
- What if the main asset is a house? The court can order that the property be sold to provide funds for the claimant, or in some cases, order a charge over the property.
- How are costs handled in these cases? The court usually reserves the question of costs for determination after the main judgment, allowing parties to make submissions.
- Can a person claim for their retirement needs? Yes, retirement needs are considered part of a person’s ‘advancement in life’ and are a valid consideration in family provision claims.
- What if a claimant has their own assets? The court will consider the claimant’s existing financial resources and earning capacity when deciding on adequate provision.
- Can a court consider the needs of beneficiaries who are not directly mentioned in the will? Yes, as seen in this case, the court can consider the financial circumstances of beneficiaries of the deceased’s beneficiary (i.e., John’s estate beneficiaries like Vicky and John’s children) when determining the burden of any provision order.
For more simplified case summaries, check out NSW Supreme Court Cases on Medigosa.