Schwanke v Alexakis; Camilleri v Alexakis

• 1. Succession
  2. › Contested probate
  3. › Undue influence
  4. › Whether presumption of undue influence arises in probate as it does in equity for inter vivos transactions
  5. › Whether testator in poor health leaving substantial gift to treating physician gives rise to presumption
  6. › Onus of proof of undue influence in probate on those seeking to impugn will
• 1. Succession
  2. › Contested probate
  3. › Knowledge and approval
  4. › Suspicious circumstances
  5. › Where testator left substantial gift to treating physician who arranged solicitor
  6. › Whether beneficiary proved testator knew and approved contents of will
• 1. Equity
  2. › Unconscionable conduct
  3. › Whether equitable principles of unconscionable conduct apply to testamentary gifts
  4. › Distinction between inter vivos transactions and testamentary dispositions
  5. › Bridgewater v Leahy hypothesis
• 1. Evidence
  2. › Credibility
  3. › Whether primary judge erred in accepting evidence of principal beneficiary
  4. › Minor inconsistencies in witness evidence
  5. › Whether witness was dishonest

Quick Take