Re Ramos - [2025] VSC 19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
IN ITS PROBATE JURISDICTION
TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2023 22736

IN THE MATTER of the deceased estate of GEORGE FRANK RAMOS for an application for revocation of grant of probate

DEENISHA NADESAN and MARCELLE JARDIM	Plaintiffs
v
DEENISHA NADESAN and MARCELLE JARDIM	Applicants

---

JUDGE:	Gray J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 January 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 January 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Ramos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 19

---

PROBATE – Identity theft – Grant of probate obtained on behalf of clients fraudulently representing themselves as the executors named in the deceased’s will – Application by true executors to revoke grant of probate – Court’s power to revoke a grant of probate obtained by fraud.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	N/A	McManus & Co Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

This case demonstrates the risks to the profession and public of identity theft in relation to probate matters.

George Frank Ramos (the deceased) died on 9 July 2021 in the Republic of South Africa leaving a Will dated 10 January 2018. The Will named Deenisha Nadesan and Marcelle Jardim[1] as executors.
[1]The Will referred to ‘Jardim Financial Consulting’, which is Ms Jardim’s business.

On 3 November 2021, Letters of Executorship were made to Deenisha Nadesan and Marcelle Jardim of the Will in the Republic of South Africa.

In July 2023, the Victorian law practice, McManus & Co Lawyers, was contacted by a person calling from South Africa and purporting to be ‘Marcelle Jardim’.

The caller claimed to have received the law practice’s details from the Law Institute of Victoria. The caller sought a consultation, claiming to be one of the executors of the deceased’s estate.

The law practice requested that documents, including the grant of probate in South Africa, the deceased’s death certificate and the Will, be emailed to the law practice.

The caller emailed these and other documents. The documents received by the law practice appear to be genuine, including letters of executorship, the Will, and the death certificate, and are certified in a document signed by the Assistant Master of the ‘South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, of the High Court of South Africa’ and bearing a seal.

Later, the caller purporting to be Ms Jardim emailed the purported contact details of Deenisha Nadesan.

The firm requested and received from the purported executors copies of identification documents of Ms Jardim and Ms Nadesan. Again, these appear to be genuine, although they are only indirectly certified as such. By ‘indirectly’ I mean that the identification documents appear to have been certified as authentic copies of the originals by a named notary public in Gauteng, and then in turn a Registrar of the High Court of South Africa, ‘South Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg’, has appended a cover page bearing a seal, and certified that the identify documents are duly notarised.

The law practice advertised the purported executors’ intention to seek…

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 Re Ramos

Details

AGLC: Re Ramos [2025] VSC 19
Case: [2025] VSC 19
Decision Date: 31 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Ramos, the deceased passed away leaving a will. The dispute arose when two individuals fraudulently represented themselves as the executors named in the will and obtained a grant of probate on behalf of the deceased’s estate. The true executors subsequently filed an application to revoke the fraudulent grant of probate. The court was required to determine whether it had the authority to revoke a grant of probate that was obtained through fraudulent means.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it had the power to revoke a grant of probate when it was established that the grant had been obtained by fraud. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to ascertain the scope of its authority in such circumstances. It was necessary to balance the court's discretion in revoking a grant of probate with the need to protect the integrity of the probate process and ensure that the true executors could administer the estate as intended by the deceased.

The court concluded that it did indeed have the power to revoke a grant of probate obtained by fraud. It relied on precedents that supported the principle that a grant of probate obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation could be revoked. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the probate process and protecting the rights of the true executors. After considering the evidence presented, the court found that the grant of probate had indeed been obtained by fraud and ordered the revocation of the fraudulent grant. The true executors were thereby granted the authority to administer the estate in accordance with the deceased's wishes.

Orders