Chubb has defeated a $10 million property claim after a Queensland court ruled a luxury estate fire was deliberate - despite inconclusive forensic evidence.
In a decision handed down on March 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the claim in PBR Properties Pty Ltd v Chubb Insurance Australia Limited [2026] QSC 47, a case first filed in 2018. The question at trial was straightforward: did Preston Richardson, the man behind PBR Properties, intentionally set fire to his own home?
Sullivan J concluded that he did.
The property - a renovated homestead known as "Wirraway" at Beaudesert - was covered under a policy insuring the residence and attached buildings for just over $10 million on an extended replacement cost basis. On December 28, 2016, fire swept through the residential section in the early hours of the morning. By the time the first crew arrived at 4am, roughly 80% of the residential section was alight.
Richardson was the only person in the house that night. He called Triple-0 at 3.32am. PBR subsequently lodged a claim. Chubb denied it, pointing to a relevant policy exclusion. Both sides agreed the policy would not respond if the fire was found to be intentional.
Three fire experts were called. The two principal experts agreed the destruction was so complete that neither the cause nor the ignition point could be identified. No traces of accelerant were detected - though experts agreed that was unsurprising given the severity of the blaze. Innocent causes, including electrical faults, could not be ruled out.
Yet the court found the wider circumstances told a different story.
Richardson's financial position was dire. His companies had no significant income. The National Australia Bank had been extending facilities month by month and was pressing for asset sales. A $3 million investment secured from a private individual earlier in 2016 had largely been spent within two months. The court found Richardson was "financially desperate" by the end of 2016.
The insurance payout would have delivered a better result than the only genuine buyer interest then on the table - $10 million - while still allowing Richardson to keep the land and live in the property's guesthouse.
His conduct after the fire also weighed heavily. The court found Richardson gave materially different accounts of what he witnessed that night to the Triple-0 operator, police, and a loss adjuster. He tried to stop a photograph showing isopropanol - a cleaning chemical he had purchased in bulk days before the fire - from reaching a fire investigator. In the weeks that followed, according to the court's findings, he asked a friend to take criminal responsibility for the fire.
Richardson took his own life on November 11, 2018, before the matter reached trial.
Applying the Briginshaw principle - which requires a higher degree of satisfaction for findings that amount to criminal conduct - Sullivan J found the circumstantial evidence supported a reasonable and definite inference of arson. The court acknowledged that motive and opportunity alone are not factors of overwhelming weight in this class of litigation, but found that taken together with the lies, concealment, and desperation, they were enough.
PBR's claim was dismissed. Chubb's counterclaim was also dismissed, as no evidence was led in support of it. Costs are yet to be determined.
The case was heard over eleven days in August and September 2024, with judgment delivered on March 13, 2026.
