PBR Properties Pty Ltd v Chubb [2026] QSC 47

Background

• In the early morning of 28 December 2016, a fire occurred at a property known as ‘Wirraway’, located at Beaudesert (property). The property was a highly renovated main homestead with an adjacent ballroom. The fire destroyed much of the home on the property, to the extent the cause of the fire was undetermined by experts.
• The property was originally purchased for approximately $3.575 million in 2012, however extensive improvements were completed between 2012 and 2014, including the construction of a guest house, a tennis court, an additional hangar, an upgrade to an air strip and roadworks.
• The property was owned by PBR Properties Pty Ltd (PBR), the trustee of the Richardson’s Property Trust. The acquisition and renovation had been paid for by PBR through funds sourced from a sibling company, Project Gas Services (PGS). PGS made an intercompany loan to PBR in excess of $14 million for the property. Preston and his wife Miranda Richardson were both behind PBR (and PGS), however Mr Richardson died by suicide prior to trial and Mrs Richardson was later removed from the proceedings.
• At the time of the fire, the property was the subject of a mortgage in favour of the National Australia Bank (NAB) and stood as security up to $8 million for a loan of around $10 million, which PGS owed to NAB. NAB had appointed receivers to PBR.
• Following the fire, Mr Richardson subsequently caused PBR to make a claim on a policy of insurance which had existed for the property. This covered loss or damage to the property for a sum of approximately $10 million and included a separate contents replacement component (Policy).
• The insurer denied PBR's claim on the basis it believed Mr Richardson deliberately lit the fire and therefore the deliberate or intentional acts exclusion in the Policy was triggered.

Evidence

Expert

Experts were engaged by both parties, however it was agreed between two fire analysts the destruction was so extensive that it was not possible from physical remnants to identify an exact cause or exact ignition point of the fire. Further, if any accelerant had in fact been used, the experts agree it would have likely left no detectable residue after the fire. 

Justice Sullivan of the Queensland Supreme Court found the expert evidence did not establish that the fire could only have been started by human instigation. He acknowledged there were other possible innocent modes of fire instigation aside from human intervention which had not been excluded as fanciful. They were: 

• a fire in the roof space; or
• a fire as a result of mechanical damage to the lighting sconces within the hallway; or
• a fire in the ESC.

Circumstantial

Justice Sullivan was not satisfied the expert evidence itself was capable of meeting the onus of proof the insurer needed to establish the fire had been deliberately lit by Mr Richardson. Ultimately the decision as to whether the claim was excluded under the Policy turned entirely on circumstantial evidence. Most relevantly, this included:

• Exclusive opportunity: Mr Richardson was the only person on the property at the time of the fire
• Financial motive:
  • Underlying financial deterioration
    • There was no significant active contract bringing in substantial income to PGS in the second half of 2016
    • NAB was extending facilities conditionally to PGS while pressing for asset sales and monitoring deteriorating cashflow
  • Funding attempts and desperation:
    • In late May 2016, Mr Richardson sought external funding for PGS, including $3 million dollars via a Convertible Note from a lender while PGS had no major contracts on foot
    • Of the $3 million injection into PGS, only $780,000 was still available in August 2016
  • Pre-fire conduct:
    • In mid-December 2016, Mr Richardson obtained PBR's insurance documents (purportedly for a sale he was working on), evidencing awareness of the policy limit. He also purchased large quantities of isopropanol shortly before the fire
    • Prior to midnight on 27 December 2016, Mr Richardson directed his farmhand to return home despite the arrangement be that he stay at the property overnight
  • Post-fire conduct:
    • Mr Richardson gave materially different accounts of key events to different audiences (i.e. the Triple‑0 operator, Police, loss adjusters)
    • In early January 2017, Mr Richardson attempted to prevent a photograph showing isopropanol at the property from reaching investigators. Around this time, he also indicated to Mrs Richardson he intended to live in the guesthouse, develop the rural land and projected future income from the property in 2019, not rebuild another main homestead for a further few years

Decision

Ultimately, Justice Sullivan found:

• the experts’ inability to determine the cause did not preclude a finding of a deliberate fire; and
• on account of all the circumstantial evidence and having regard to the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 which required a high degree of satisfaction and that such a finding not be made by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony or indirect inferences, the fire was lit deliberately by Mr Richardson to obtain the insurance proceeds under the Policy.

The insurer had therefore met the onus of proof as the party asserting the Policy exclusion, and PBR’s claim was dismissed.

Takeaways

Forensic uncertainty is not fatal to a defence involving a serious allegation like arson if the circumstantial picture is strong. Here, Justice Sullivan accepted that while the cause of this fire could not be identified from remnants, the insurer was still able to meet the Briginshaw standard for a serious finding by simply relying on a significant body of circumstantial evidence.