Young Deloitte worker wins multimillion-dollar inheritance after grandfather’s last-minute diary note is ruled a valid will – as businessman’s only daughter loses bid for the estate
A court has ruled that a diary entry written by Sydney businessman Jianping Shen two days before his death is a valid will, awarding most of his multimillion-dollar estate to his grandson Gordon Dang. The decision rejects his only daughter’s claim that the note was forged and resolves a dispute over assets held in Australia and China.
Shen wrote that 60 per cent of his assets and the family trust should go to his “eldest nephew”, which the judge found referred to Dang, while 40 per cent should go to his carer and de facto partner, Eva Wu. The estate included properties in Sydney, Shanghai and Beijing, luxury cars, company interests and Chinese assets, including a company with more than A$13 million in compensation payments and shares worth about A$5 million. A handwriting expert supported the note’s authenticity; the dispute followed earlier legal action by Shen over alleged loans of about A$2.38 million.
- A diary note was upheld as Jianping Shen’s valid will.
- His grandson receives 60 per cent of the estate.
- A handwriting expert supported the note’s authenticity.
New here? Start with this
Jianping Shen was a Sydney businessman who owned a multimillion-pound estate spread across multiple countries, including properties in Australia and China, luxury vehicles, company interests and other valuable assets. He died recently, leaving behind a diary entry written just two days before his death that proposed how his fortune should be distributed.
Following his death, his only daughter contested the diary entry, claiming it was forged and that she should inherit the majority of the estate. At stake was not simply the division of wealth, but the fundamental question of whether a hastily written diary note could legally function as a valid will.
The dispute held wider significance owing to the estate's international nature, spanning assets in both Australia and China. It raised questions about whether informal documents could legally serve as valid wills.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The court's decision properly upholds testamentary freedom—a foundational principle of inheritance law. The handwriting expert verified authenticity, the intent was explicit and dated, and the judge evaluated all evidence fairly. People should have the right to dispose of their property as they wish, even if their choices are unconventional or disappoint family members who expected to inherit. This ruling honours the deceased's autonomy and the legal system's integrity.
The case against
The ruling raises legitimate questions about inheritance law's adequacy. Whilst testamentary freedom matters, a handwritten diary entry—however authentic—may not reliably reflect settled intentions, particularly when written only days before death. The absence of more formal testamentary procedures, combined with the substantial involvement of a beneficiary (the testator's carer), suggests the law might reasonably require greater formality for such significant decisions. This would protect against ambiguity and potential concerns about undue influence whilst still respecting genuine testamentary wishes.