Re Karakostov

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2023 26482

IN THE MATTER of the estate of GEORGE KARAKOSTOV, deceased

KIRCHE KARAKOSTOV	Plaintiff
v
MARIA KARAKOSTA	First Defendant
KLIMENT KARAKOSTOV	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gray J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	8 and 9 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 July 2025 (ex tempore oral reasons); 17 July 2025 (written reasons)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Karakostov
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 430

---

WILLS AND ESTATES – Caveator filed grounds of objection to grant of probate of testator’s will – Alleged lack of testamentary capacity – Testator dying and in palliative care at time of consulting with solicitor who prepared will and at time of executing will – No contemporaneous report by a medical practitioner attesting to testator’s testamentary capacity – Contemporaneous medical notes referred to testator’s lack of comprehension of details and seriousness of medical condition – Test for testamentary capacity does not require comprehension of medical condition – Clear evidence of deceased’s testamentary capacity given by solicitor and by witnessing interpreter – Corroborative contextual evidence of family members and annotations on will – Court affirmatively satisfied that testator had testamentary capacity – Kantor v Vosahlo [2004] VSCA 235 – Brown v Guss [2014] VSC 251 – Veall v Veall (2015) 46 VR 123; [2015] VSCA 60 – Re Matthews [2022] VSC 15 – Re Klapsas;Klapsas v Muscat [2022] VSC 755.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Caveator sought retrospective extension of time before expiry of caveat to file and serve grounds of objection – Extension of very short duration – No prejudice claimed – Extension granted – Supreme Court (Administration and Probate) Rules 2014 r 8.03(3)(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr JD Catlin	N/A
For the First Defendant	Mr R Wells	GPZ Legal
For the Second Defendant	Self-represented	N/A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Background – the family.............................................................................................................. 1
Two competing probate applications......................................................................................... 2
Witnesses to the execution of the 2023 Will.............................................................................. 2
Procedural steps in this proceeding........................................................................................... 3
Questions for determination....................................................................................................... 3

Consideration...................................................................................................................................... 4

Extension of time........................................................................................................................... 4
Testamentary capacity.................................................................................................................. 5
Applicable principles.......................................................................................................... 6
The witnesses..................................................................................................................... 11
Events leading to the making of the 2023 will.............................................................. 11
The 2023 will and the evidence of Ms Rizkallah and Mr Kocovski........................... 17
Evidence of family members........................................................................................... 21
Radical departure from 1989 will?.................................................................................. 22

Other matters that arose for consideration................................................................................. 22

Ms Cashmore’s note of 28 March 2023..................................................................................... 22
Evidence of Mr Marcevski......................................................................................................... 25
Dr Gamboni................................................................................................................................. 25
Medical tests................................................................................................................................ 26

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 26

HIS HONOUR:

Should Kirche Karakostov (Kirche) be granted probate of George Karakostov’s will dated 6 April 2023 (the 2023 will)? Or should I dismiss Kirche’s application for probate on the grounds of objection to probate filed by Kliment Karakostov (Kliment)? Kliment contends that George Karakostov lacked testamentary capacity when he made his will on 6 April 2023.

Introduction
Background – the family

George…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Karakostov involved a caveator who filed grounds of objection to the grant of probate of the will of the deceased, Mr. Karakostov. The objection was based on the alleged lack of testamentary capacity of the testator at the time of executing the will. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue was whether Mr. Karakostov had the requisite testamentary capacity when he executed his will. The court had to consider whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the testator understood the nature and effect of making a will, the nature and extent of his property, and the claims to which he might be subject.

The court reviewed the evidence and found that, although Mr. Karakostov was in palliative care and did not fully comprehend the details and seriousness of his medical condition, the test for testamentary capacity does not require such comprehension. The court relied on the evidence of the solicitor who prepared the will and the interpreting witness, who both attested to the testator's capacity. The court also considered corroborative evidence from family members and annotations on the will, which indicated the testator's testamentary capacity. The court was satisfied that the testator had the necessary testamentary capacity to execute the will.

In addition, the court addressed the caveator's application for a retrospective extension of time to file and serve the grounds of objection. The extension was sought just before the expiry of the caveat and was of a very short duration, with no prejudice claimed. The court granted the extension under Supreme Court (Administration and Probate) Rules 2014 r 8.03(3)(b).

Continue reading Re Karakostov

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established