The Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) and the Supreme Court (Administration of Probate) Rules 2023 (Vic) ( and their relevant antecedents) are significant in Re Ramos [2025] VSC 19, as they provide the legal framework for probate matters. However, they do not directly pertain to the specific issues raised in this Re Ramos [2025] VSC 19.
According to s67 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, the procedures utilised by the Victorian Supreme Court in its probate jurisdiction correspond with the Court’s practices in its ecclesiastical jurisdiction before 1 January 1873 unless stated otherwise.
Re Gillard [1949] VLR 378
Bertha Cribb made a Will in 1884, devising real property at Collingwood to Robert Gillard. Robert was then a married man, and his wife died in 1888. Bertha and Robert married in 1890. Bertha died in 1902. Robert obtained probate of the 1884 Will, concealing its revocation by marriage in his application.
Robert married again in 1905 – to Grace. Robert died in 1905, and Grace lived until 1940. By a 1905 Will, Robert appointed Grace his executor. He directed that she receive rent from the Collingwood property and that, on her death, all his biological children receive the net sale proceeds. After Grace died in 1941, a son of Robert authorised the Public Trustees to obtain administration of his father’s unadministered Estate.
The 1902 fraud was uncovered. It became clear that the marriage revoked the 1884 Will and Bertha had died intestate. Under the then-relevant intestacy provisions, Robert was entitled to one-half of her Estate, and, Bertha having no next of kin, the other half was to go by escheat to the Crown (in Victoria, escheat to the Crown was abolished in 1928, but the right, in any case, arose on Bertha’s death in 1902).
Barry J found that the Crown had standing to seek revocation of the grant of probate insofar as the Crown had an interest in the Collingwood property. His Honour concluded that the Crown Solicitor was entitled to apply for a grant of administration.
Barry J said:
“The document concerning which probate was granted was not a Will at all at the time of the grant. It was a document that the statute deprived of all validity as a will when Bertha Hill Cribb married Robert Dyer Gillard after she executed it … the Court cannot acquiesce in the fraud that has been practised upon it, by permitting the continuance of a grant of probate that gives validity to a document demonstrated to lack that quality”
holding that the Court should revoke the grant of probate and order a grant of administration of the Estate to the Crown Solicitor and his successors for the use and benefit of His Majesty.
It has long been accepted that the Court has a broad discretionary power to revoke a probate grant based on considering all the case circumstances. As Sir Francis Jeune, President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, said In the Goods of William Loveday 1900,
‘the real object which the Court must always keep in view is the due and proper administration of the estate and the interests of the parties beneficially entitled thereto’.
The Matter
Re Ramos [2025] VSC 19 highlights the dangers of identity theft in probate matters, with significant implications for the legal profession and the public. It underscores the potential risks of probate fraud and the need for robust prevention measures. These measures are essential to protect the interests of the deceased and their beneficiaries and maintain the legal system’s integrity.
Background
George Frank Ramos passed away on 9 July 2021 in South Africa, leaving a Will dated 10 January 2018 naming Deenisha Nadesan and Marcelle Jardim as executors. The Will also referenced Ms. Jardim’s business, Jardim Financial Consulting. On 3 November 2021, the Republic of South Africa issued Letters of Executorship to Nadesan and Jardim.
In July 2023, a person claiming to be Marcelle Jardim from South Africa contacted McManus & Co. Lawyers in Victoria. The caller, who claimed to have obtained the firm’s details from the Law Institute of Victoria, sought legal assistance as an executor of the Estate.
McManus & Co. requested documentation, including the South African probate grant, the deceased’s death certificate, and the Will. The caller provided these documents, which appeared genuine and bore official seals and certifications.
The supposed Ms Jardim later supplied contact details for Deenisha Nadesan. The law firm requested and received copies of both executors’ identification documents, which also seemed authentic, having been notarised in Gauteng and further certified by the High Court of South Africa. With these documents, McManus & Co. advertised the executor’s intention to apply for probate and later applied to the Victorian Supreme Court.
The Court Registry requested an affidavit from a South African lawyer explaining why the original Will could not be released. A document was provided by the supposed Ms. Jardim and submitted by McManus & Co. The Supreme Court registry granted probate on 13 September 2023 under Unique Identifier 93969646.
McManus & Co. corresponded with the purported executors concerning the deceased’s ANZ bank accounts, receiving instructions to retrieve the funds and distribute them accordingly. However, they repeatedly declined requests for video conferences, citing poor internet connectivity.
McManus & Co. received and deposited the bank funds into its trust account, preparing a distribution statement. Around this time, the executor’s communications became more frequent and emotional, raising the suspicions of Gabrielle McManus the firm’s principal.
Before finalising the distribution, Ms McManus conducted independent research using publicly available sources to verify the executor’s contact details. Ms McManus found discrepancies between the accurate contact details and those provided by the purported executors. The website linked to the supposed executors appeared professional but contained grammatical errors and broken links.
Upon contacting the real Ms Jardim through verified sources, Ms McManus confirmed that neither she nor Ms Nadesan knew about the transactions or legal proceedings. Once informed of the situation, the executors authorised McManus & Co. to act on their behalf and provided affidavits supporting the revocation of the 2023 probate grant.
The matter
With the executor’s authorisation, McManus & Co. filed a summons to revoke the fraudulent grant. The deceased’s widow, the sole beneficiary under the Will, consented to the application. Meanwhile, the legitimate executors initiated a new probate application in a separate proceeding.
The Court acknowledged that the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) and related probate rules did not address this type of fraud directly. However, it affirmed the Court’s broad discretionary power to revoke a grant obtained through fraud, citing Re Gillard [1949] VLR 378. Gray J was satisfied that the supposed Ms Jardim had fraudulently obtained the 2023 grant of probate.
The decision
Notably, the Court clarified that neither McManus & Co nor its principal, Ms McManus, knew of the fraud. Nevertheless, after uncovering the deception, Ms McManus and the actual executors sought to revoke the grant to prevent any further misuse. The Court agreed and ordered its immediate revocation.
The Court commended Ms. McManus and her firm for detecting fraud before distributing the estate funds. However, it noted that McManus & Co. Lawyers could have taken more substantial precautions before the firm applied for a grant of probate. In response, McManus & Co has since implemented stricter fraud prevention measures, including verifying notaries and witnesses and requiring video identification calls, to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Re Ramos [2025] VSC 19 raised concerns about vulnerabilities in record-keeping and communication systems that fraudsters could exploit. It remains unclear how the impostors obtained seemingly genuine copies of sensitive legal documents. Similarly, it is unexplained and unclear how the purported executors came into possession of apparent genuine copies of sensitive documents presumably filed by the actual executors in South Africa. There are also concerns about the interception of correspondence between the actual executors (one of whom has a prominent law firm in South Africa) and the ANZ bank.
The parties requested no order for costs.
The post Power to revoke a grant of probate obtained by fraud. appeared first on heirs & successes.