Colosimo v Colosimo

In the matter of Colosimo v Colosimo, the plaintiff sought a grant of probate of a copy will, as the original could not be located. The dispute involved the validity and effect of a copy will in the absence of the original document, with the court tasked with determining whether the presumption of revocation could be rebutted. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the presumption of revocation of the original will could be rebutted by the evidence presented, and the extent to which the presumptions of fact should be weighed. The court had to consider the circumstances under which the deceased kept an unmarked copy of the original will, as well as relevant case law, including Cahill v Rhodes, Re Demediuk, and Ulman v Mom.

The court examined the evidence and determined that the presumption of revocation was not sufficiently rebutted by the plaintiff's evidence. The court found that the deceased's actions in keeping an unmarked copy of the original will did not sufficiently demonstrate an intention to retain the will as a valid testamentary document. The court ultimately held that the presumption of revocation was not overcome, and the copy will was not entitled to probate. The court's decision was based on the weight of the presumptions of fact and the lack of compelling evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation. The plaintiff's application for probate of the copy will was dismissed.