Peter Dawson in battle over friend and client’s $13.6m estate
Peter Dawson, the brother of convicted murderer Chris Dawson, is fighting a family who are contesting the finality of an ‘informal will’ that was left on a client’s iPhone.
Peter Dawson, the brother of convicted murderer Chris Dawson, is in a battle for part of his friend and client Colin Peek’s $13.6m estate, with the family contesting the finality of an “informal will” that was left in the notes app of his iPhone that named Peter Dawson and Peek’s best mate Brad as part recipients of his estate.
Mr Dawson, a solicitor who had assisted Peek with hundreds of legal matters over 25 years, and Brad Wheatley argued Peek’s inheritance should be distributed to them, and others, after they were both named in the legitimate will titled “the last will of Colin L Peek”, found in the notes app of Peek’s phone in the days after his death on August 16, 2022.
Mr Dawson and Mr Wheatley found the note – the only one on his iPhone – three days after Peek’s death, after they had searched all the paper files in his study. Peek had not told anyone about the phone “will”.
The Peek family, led by Colin’s brother Ronald, are not contesting whether the “informal document” is legitimate, only that Colin Peek did not want the note to operate as his last will. It was instead a “working document”, leading wills and estates lawyer Simon Chapple SC argued in a three-day hearing in the NSW Supreme Court, and is not binding.
Colin Peek, a property developer who bought and sold real estate, did not have a spouse or any children.
Whether Justice Mark Richmond finds the digital note can be a binding and final will could set an important precedent for probate law.
As per the note created on August 5, Peek’s cleaner and friend Judy Jones would get $50,000; his brother Ronald Peek would get 15 per cent; two other friends would get 5 per cent; Mr Dawson would get 5 per cent for “handling of CP (Colin Peek) will” and Mr Wheatley would get the “remaining balance of the accounts”.
Minus some loans, Mr Dawson would come into $308,425, and Mr Wheatley, who brought the court action, would stand to collect more than $10.3m.
The note also named Mr Wheatley as “executor of my affairs”, which was written a day after Colin Peek had an acute medical episode in which paramedics were called to his home. He also divided his cars between his brother and Mr Wheatley in the note, and gave Mr Wheatley the house. “Anyone contests my will they get cut out completely. No one else gets a thing, CP,” the note ended.
Ronald Peek’s lawyer, Dr Chapple, said that if Colin Peek meant for it to be a final will, he would have told those most interested – Mr Wheatley, the executor, and his solicitor Mr Dawson – that he had written it and where it was. Instead, he relied on the “detective skills of (his) beneficiaries”.
There were also mistakes in the note, Dr Chapple said, including incomplete words like “fu” instead of “funeral”, which he said was consistent with it being “a working document”. He also took issue with the fact Mr Dawson was both a solicitor in the matter and stood to gain if Mr Wheatley won the case.
In cross-examination on Tuesday, Dr Chapple asked Mr Dawson if his financial interest in the outcome of proceedings had clouded his judgment, to which Mr Dawson said: “No, it has not”.
Mr Dawson is the older brother of Chris Dawson, who was found guilty in the NSW Supreme Court of murdering his wife Lynette more than 40 years ago, after The Australian’s 2018 podcast, The Teacher’s Pet, ignited global interest in the unsolved case.
Mr Wheatley had access to the phone in the days beforehand, going to Colin Peek’s home on a few occasions to clean up. There were no other text messages or emails on the phone when it was examined by experts, with questions remaining about who deleted that information and when.
Dr Chapple appeared to abandon an earlier argument that the will was “executed in suspicious circumstances” and said instead there was likely more context to the “informal will” that Mr Wheatley and Mr Dawson had failed to provide.
Mr Wheatley, who was represented in court by barrister Elizabeth Picker and instructed by Mr Dawson, argued the document was the final will “without more”, as required by the Succession Act, because it was titled “the last will”, was electronically signed off with “CP”, and even attempted to ward off a potential contest.
Ms Picker said there was nothing to suggest it was a list of instructions to his solicitor Mr Dawson, and “nothing to indicate it’s a draft will or trial run”, describing Colin Peek as a definite and decisive man.
She also relied on the evidence of Ms Jones, who recalled Peek telling her: “I have finalised my will and I decided to leave a small percentage to my brother Ron.”
Justice Richmond reserved his decision.
Immigration detention duty: minister Burke powers up
Immigration Minister Tony Burke has quietly issued new rules granting himself the power to impose electronic monitoring and curfews on dangerous non-citizens released from detention.
$42k taxpayer grant for anti-Israel artist
Matt Chun received a $42,452 taxpayer grant in May 2023 to publish a picture book. He previously co-wrote works that attacked ‘colonial and imperialist’ statues.