Inside ‘riddle’ at centre of Burnett farm Qld Supreme Court fight

A Qld woman who claims her inheritance was tied to a ‘riddle’ her grandfather told her when she was a child has tried to have her father’s will overturned.

A North Burnett woman who claims her inheritance was tied to a “riddle” by her grandfather has been dealt a blow in her attempts to reclaim ownership of a regional property at The Limits she believes belongs to her.

A North Burnett woman who claims her inheritance was tied to a “riddle” by her grandfather has been dealt a blow in her attempts to reclaim ownership of a large property she believes belongs to her.

Christine Maree Dawson has sued eight defendants including the Public Trustee of Queensland and law firm CW Hooper Pty Ltd over an 81ha property at The Limits, about 5km southeast of Gayndah.

Published court documents said the property was part of her father’s estate.

It was sold to two of the defendants, Neil and Deborah Blee, in February 2023.

Ms Dawson alleged in her claim the property had been unlawfully sold which led to her eviction, the documents said.

She claimed she had “every legal right to live on the property according to her father’s will”.

The document said she was asking the court to return possession of the property to her, and compensation from a related trust pre-dated to 2007 which was the date she “worked out the riddle”.

A North Burnett woman who claims her inheritance was tied to a “riddle” by her grandfather has been dealt a blow in her attempts to reclaim ownership of a regional property at The Limits she believes belongs to her.

The riddle in question - apparently titled “figure it out” - was one she claimed she was given by her grandfather when she was 10 years old, the document said.

Ms Dawson claimed it tied her to the trust as “sole beneficiary” with the answer being “the family gene which I don’t have”.
She further alleged the trustee “failed to stop” another defendant, Joanne Dawson, from “selling the property illegally”, and had allowed the Blees to “clear and burn land” on the property, and “to enter my home” which led to her belongings being “turfed out in the weather”.

She asked the court to order the “immediate eviction” of the Blees, the document said.

A barrister, a solicitor, and another man she accused of “illegally squatting” on the property were among the other defendants.

The Trustee and CW Hooper asked the court to strike out Ms Dawson’s claims against them.

Justice Peter Davis agreed, finding Ms Dawson’s claims against them “were insensible and misconceived” and it was within the court’s power to end proceedings in such cases when it was clear “the claim cannot succeed”.

‘Fly high beautiful girl’: Teenage crash victim killed in horror triple fatal

WATCH: Motorcyclist’s eye-watering alleged speed in 60 zone

Justice Peter Davis found Christine Maree Dawson’s claims against two defendants, the Public Trustee of Queensland and law firm CW Hooper Pty Ltd, “were insensible and misconceived” and it was within the court’s power to end proceedings in such cases when it was clear “the claim cannot succeed”.

Justice Davis said in his decision the problems with the claim included being unclear on what Ms Dawson meant in her claims that part of the trust included a “wage” belonging to her grandfather and compensation from when she “worked out the riddle”, which was “meaningless”.

“The prayer for relief against (the Public Trustee of Queensland) is insensible,” Justice Davis said.

“It seeks... an order for possession of property owned by a third party.”

The relief sought against CW Hooper “is equally confusing and is not supported by allegations of material facts”.

“The proceedings should not be allowed to vex the first and second defendants any longer,” Justice Davis said.

“Here, there is nothing on the face of the claim... which seriously suggests any misconduct or that any misconduct could have been proved against either of the (two) defendants.

“Any grievance which the plaintiff has is founded in some family history which, on the face of the claim... does not concern the first or second defendants.”

He ordered the claims against the two be thrown out and they make applications for costs by the end of May.

Ms Dawson was given until Friday to make her own response to the costs claims.

Originally published as Inside ‘riddle’ at centre of Burnett farm Qld Supreme Court fight