Legal Research
Cases
Chie v Veale

Chie v Veale

Case [2025] NSWSC 1143 10 October 2025

Family Provision

Statutory Entitlement

Intestate Succession

Claim by Adult Child

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chie v Veale [2025] NSWSC 1143
Hearing dates: 2-3 June 2025
Date of orders: 10 October 2025
Decision date: 10 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity – Probate and Family Provision List – Family Provision
Before: Williams J
Decision:
See orders at [85]

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – family provision – claim by adult son for further provision out of the estate of his deceased mother – where deceased’s estate is comprised of real property, a motor vehicle and a small amount of cash – where deceased made a will leaving the real property and motor vehicle to one of her four children (John) and leaving the cash to her other three children – where the deceased’s will provided that, if John predeceased her, the real property was to be sold and divided between her other three children and John’s children – where John died intestate some four months after the deceased – where John’s wife, from whom he separated several years before his death, has a statutory entitlement to a statutory legacy and half of the remainder John’s intestate estate – where the plaintiff (David) seeks an order for further provision out of his deceased mother’s estate – where the claim is opposed by John’s estranged wife – whether the circumstances and needs of John’s estranged wife are relevant to the determination of the plaintiff’s claim

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57, 59, 60, 65, 106, 113, 127

Cases Cited:
Blendell v Byrne [2019] NSWSC 583
Blendell v Blendell [2020] NSWCA 154
Camernik v Reholc [2012] NSWSC 1537
Chapman v Ingold [2015] NSWSC 1604
Estate of the Late Violet Eugenie Harrigan – Cowmey v Whibley [2012] NSWSC 291
Keaton v Gumulak [2020] NSWSC 943
Megerditchian v Khatchadourian [2020] NSWCA 229
Nicholas v Nicholas [2013] NSWSC 697
Rakovich v Marszalek [2020] NSWSC 589
Scott v Scott [2022] NSWCA 182
Smith v Johnson (2015) 14 ASTLR 175; [2015] NSWCA 297

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: David Keith Chie (Plaintiff)
Maria Victoria Veale (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Tibbey (Plaintiff)
Ms M Pringle (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Williamson Isabella Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McAneny Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/430153
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

The late Charmaine Mary Joan Chie died on 29 November 2022 at the age of 88 years. During her lifetime, the deceased was known by the name “Shirley”.
Shirley was survived by John William Veale, who was one of two children of her marriage to John Rexford Veale, and by David Chie and Marilyn Corish, who are the two children of her subsequent marriage to Peter Chie. Another child of the deceased’s first marriage, Diane Veigel, died on 1 August 2017 and is survived by her partner Janice Fay Hennessy (known as “Fay”).
John William Veale died intestate on 4 March 2023. He is survived by his wife, Maria Victoria Veale (known as “Vicky”), from whom he had been separated some years earlier, his three children with Vicky (Benjamin Matthew Veale, Cassandra Lee…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chie v Veale

Details

AGLC: Chie v Veale [2025] NSWSC 1143
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1143
Decision Date: 10 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chie v Veale concerns a family provision claim by an adult son, David, for further provision out of his deceased mother's estate. The estate consists of real property, a motor vehicle, and a small amount of cash. The deceased had made a will leaving the real property and motor vehicle to one of her four children, John, and the cash to her other three children. The will also provided that if John predeceased the deceased, the real property was to be sold and divided between her other three children and John's children. John died intestate some four months after the deceased, leaving his estranged wife, who has a statutory entitlement to a legacy and half of the remainder of his intestate estate, with a claim against his estate. David seeks an order for further provision out of his deceased mother's estate, which is opposed by John's estranged wife.

The legal issues before the court included whether the circumstances and needs of John's estranged wife were relevant to the determination of David's claim. The court had to consider the deceased's intentions as expressed in the will and the statutory provisions governing family provision claims. The court also needed to balance the competing interests of the deceased's children and her estranged daughter-in-law. The court had to determine whether David's claim was substantiated and, if so, the appropriate amount of provision that should be made.

The court held that the circumstances and needs of John's estranged wife were relevant to the determination of David's claim. The court found that the deceased had made provision for John's estranged wife in her will, indicating her intention to provide for her. The court also noted that John's estranged wife had a statutory entitlement to a legacy and half of the remainder of his intestate estate. The court held that David's claim was not substantiated, as the deceased had made adequate provision for him in her will. The court ordered that no further provision be made out of the deceased's estate.

Orders