Paraskov v Paraskos

[2002] WASC 109

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Succession
2. › Wills probate and administration
3. › Knowledge and approval of contents
4. › Will written in English
5. › Testator illiterate in English
6. › Whether contents explained to testator before signing
7. › Whether will explained to testator
1. Evidence
2. › Presumptions
3. › Presumption of regularity
4. › Inference that solicitor followed usual practice
5. › Whether inference rebutted by circumstances
1. Succession
2. › Wills probate and administration
3. › Probate in solemn form
4. › Costs
5. › Whether costs should follow the event
6. › Whether indemnity costs appropriate

Quick Take

Where a solicitor had an established regular practice of explaining will contents to non-English speaking clients, the court will infer that practice was followed in a particular case absent evidence to the contrary. Misspellings of beneficiaries' names, minor inaccuracies in the testator's description, and the testator's simplified explanations of complex trust provisions to friends and family do not raise a suspicion that the will was not explained to the testator.