Prpic v Mrvcic - [2025] ACTSC 477

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Prpic v Mrvcic
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 477
Hearing Date:	17 October 2025
Decision Date:	24 October 2025
Before:	Balla AJ
Decision:	(1) The caveat filed by the defendant on 17 February 2025 is set aside pursuant to r 3069(4) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). (2) The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – SUCCESSION – Application to set aside caveat in relation to grant of representation – whether testator had testamentary capacity at time of making will – longstanding mental illness – no appearance by defendant throughout proceedings – caveat set aside
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 3069
Cases Cited:	Boreham v Prince Henry Hospital (1955) 29 ALJ 179 Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277
Parties:	Zelka Prpic (Executrix under the Will of Antonio Prpic) ( Plaintiff) Maria Mrvcic ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel C Pagan ( Plaintiff) No appearance ( Defendant)
Solicitors Bevan & Co ( Plaintiff) No appearance ( Defendant)
File Number:	SC 210 of 2025

BALLA AJ:

Introduction

1․Antonio Prpic (the Testator) was one of four children. He died on 7 January 2025. He had executed a will on 1 July 2022 (the Will).
2․The defendant, Maria Mrvcic is the Testator’s mother. On 17 February 2025 Maria Mrvcic lodged a caveat under the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the Court Procedure Rules) against a grant of representation for the estate. The grounds for her objection are described in the caveat as follows:
The caveator challenges the validity of any will of the deceased on the grounds that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity to make a will; or any will was obtained fraudulently by Zelka Prpic and Anita Prpic; or the deceased was suffering under duress from Zelka Prpic and Anita Prpic.

3․In the Will, the Testator appointed his twin sister, Anita Ginoski (formerly known as Anita Prpic), as executor of his estate. The Will provided that if Anita Ginoski refused to or was unable to act as executor, Zelka Prpic, another of the four siblings, was to be his executor.
4․On 23 June 2025 Anita Ginoski renounced her position as executor, on the express understanding that Zelka Prpic, would replace her as executor of the Will.
5․In the Will the testator left his estate equally to his sisters Anita Ginoski and Zelka Prpic.
6․By Originating Application filed 11 June 2025, Zelka Prpic seeks an order setting aside the caveat lodged by Maria Mrvcic.

Procedural history

7․The proceedings were first before the Court on 14 July 2025. Maria Mrvcic did not appear and the matter was adjourned to 21 July 2025. Zelka Prpic was directed to advise Maria Mrvcic of that Order.
8․On 21 July 2025 Maria Mrvcic did not appear. Orders were made for Maria Mrvcic to file and serve her evidence by 18 August 2025, with Zelka Prpic to serve any evidence in reply by 15 September 2025. The matter was adjourned to 22 September…

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 Prpic v Mrvcic

Details

AGLC: Prpic v Mrvcic [2025] ACTSC 477
Case: [2025] ACTSC 477
Decision Date: 24 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Prpic v Mrvcic involved a dispute regarding a will and the testamentary capacity of the deceased at the time the will was executed. The applicant, Prpic, sought to set aside a caveat lodged by the defendant, Mrvcic, which was in relation to a grant of representation. The caveat was intended to challenge the validity of the will, raising concerns about the deceased's mental state at the time of making the will. The matter was heard in the ACT Supreme Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the deceased possessed testamentary capacity at the time of making the will. The court had to consider evidence of the deceased's longstanding mental illness and its impact on their ability to understand and execute the will. Additionally, the court had to address the absence of the defendant, Mrvcic, who did not appear or provide any evidence throughout the proceedings. The court's decision hinged on determining the weight of the uncontested evidence presented by the applicant and the implications of the defendant's non-appearance.

In ruling on the matter, the court examined the evidence provided by the applicant regarding the deceased's mental health history and capacity at the time of making the will. Given the uncontested nature of the evidence and the defendant's complete absence from the proceedings, the court concluded that the caveat should be set aside. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated the deceased's testamentary capacity at the relevant time, and the defendant's failure to participate in the proceedings further supported the applicant's position. The court ordered that the caveat be set aside and directed the defendant to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.

The final orders of the court included the setting aside of the caveat filed by the defendant on 17 February 2025 and the direction that the defendant pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings. The decision affirmed the validity of the will and paved the way for the grant of representation to proceed without further impediment.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The caveat filed by the defendant on 17 February 2025 is set aside pursuant to r 3069(4) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).

(2) The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.