Legal Research
Cases
Doric v Orec

Doric v Orec

Case [2025] NSWSC 245 24 March 2025

Testamentary Capacity

Intestacy

Family Provision

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Doric v Orec [2025] NSWSC 245
Hearing dates: 3-6 March 2025
Date of orders: 24 March 2025
Decision date: 24 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity – Probate and Family Provision List – Probate
Before: Peden J
Decision:
At [161]

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Contested probate — Lack of knowledge and approval — Suspicious circumstances — Where sole beneficiary drafted will in English — Whether deceased understood English
SUCCESSION — Contested probate — Testamentary capacity — Memory issues — Dementia — Where deceased suffered from depression — Where later will’s bequests consistent with earlier will
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claim by adult child — Whether inadequate provision — Operation of law of intestacy — Where insufficient evidence of financial and material circumstances — Where claimant lived with deceased — Where insufficient evidence led by claimant

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98
Succession Act 2006 (NSW) ss 6, 8, 57-60, 99, 127

Cases Cited:
Anderson v Yongpairojwong [2024] NSWCA 220
Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320
Blendell v Blendell [2020] NSWCA 154
Bowditch v NSW Trustee & Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Burke v Burke [2015] NSWCA 195
Carr v Homersham (2018) 97 NSWLR 328
Chapple v Wilcox [2014] NSWCA 392
DJ Singh v DH Singh [2018] NSWCA 30
Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335
Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264
Grover v NSW Trustee & Guardian [2015] NSWSC 1048
Hatsatouris v Hatsatouris [2001] NSWCA 408
Jeffreys v Sheer [2025] NSWCA 31
Lim v Lim [2023] NSWCA 84
Megerditchian v Khatchadourian [2020] NSWCA 229
Mekhail v Hana [2019] NSWCA 197
Spata v Tumino [2018] NSWCA 17
Stone v Stone [2019] NSWSC 233
Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801
Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757
Zorbas v Sidiropoulous (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 197

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Judy Nada Doric (Plaintiff)
Darko Orec (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A G Rogers (Plaintiff)
R Bianchi (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Alexander Richards Lawyers (Plaintiff)
O’Neill Solicitors (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/00093724
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Bozica Orec died on 27 March 2022, aged 88. Her children with her late husband, Mato Orec, are Michelle Orec, Judy Doric, and Darko (Darryl) Orec. Those children are now in dispute about her estate.
Without meaning any disrespect, in these reasons I refer to the deceased and members of her family by their first names.
Bozica’s estate largely consists of a single asset, being the property at Regents Park, in which she was living when she died. A real estate agent’s market appraisal dated 31 January 2025 valued it at approximately $1.4 to $1.5 million.
In dispute are two purported joint wills of Mato and Bozica. One informal will dated 29 May 2001 was only witnessed by one person. Another was dated 3 July 2016.
Mato died on 26 January 2019, aged 89. There is no dispute that his whole estate passed to Bozica.
Both disputed wills name Darryl as the sole beneficiary of Bozica’s estate.
Judy contended that Bozica could not understand…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Doric v Orec

Details

AGLC: Doric v Orec [2025] NSWSC 245
Case: [2025] NSWSC 245
Decision Date: 24 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Doric v Orec involved a dispute over the validity of a will and the subsequent distribution of an estate. The will, which named a sole beneficiary as the executor, was contested by another family member on the basis of lack of knowledge and approval, suspicious circumstances, and doubts about the deceased's testamentary capacity. The deceased, who had drafted the will in English, was alleged not to have understood English. The deceased also suffered from memory issues, dementia, and depression. The court was required to determine whether the deceased had the necessary testamentary capacity to draft the will and whether the bequests were consistent with earlier wills. Additionally, the court had to assess a family provision claim by an adult child, who alleged inadequate provision under the intestacy laws. The claim hinged on the financial and material circumstances of the claimant and the deceased, but insufficient evidence was presented to support the claim.

The court found that the deceased had the necessary testamentary capacity to draft the will, despite memory issues and depression. The bequests in the later will were consistent with earlier wills, indicating a clear testamentary intention. The court also noted that the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim of inadequate provision under the intestacy laws. The claimant had lived with the deceased but failed to provide adequate financial and material evidence to substantiate their claim. The court concluded that the will was valid and that the claimant's family provision claim was not supported by the evidence presented.

In light of the findings, the court granted the probate of the will and dismissed the family provision claim. The court found that the deceased had the capacity to draft the will and that the bequests were consistent with earlier wills. The claimant's family provision claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of financial and material circumstances. The court ruled that the estate should be distributed according to the terms of the will, and the family provision claim was denied. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles.

Orders