Kostic v Chaplin & Ors

Kostic v Chaplin & Ors

The court found that Branislav Kostic lacked testamentary capacity when making the 1988 and 1989 Wills and the 1984 Codicil, as his delusional disorder poisoned his affections and prevented him from properly appreciating the claims of natural beneficiaries. The delusions influenced the dispositions in the challenged wills, resulting in a disposal that would not have been made if his mind had been sound.

Parties
Claimant: Zoran Kostic; Defendant: Sir Malcolm Chaplin; Defendant: Martin Saunders; Defendant: H M Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
Action succeeds; probate pronounced against the 1989 Will, 1988 Will, and 1984 Codicil; probate granted of the 1974 Will.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Delusional Disorder, Validity of Wills, Charitable Trusts, Purpose Trusts
Succession Probate Mental Health Law Testamentary Capacity Delusional Disorder Validity of Wills Charitable Trusts Purpose Trusts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoran Kostic

Claimant

Sir Malcolm Chaplin

Defendant

Martin Saunders

Defendant

H M Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased, Branislav Kostic, had testamentary capacity when making the 1988 and 1989 Wills and the 1984 Codicil
  2. 2 Whether the dispositions in the 1988 and 1989 Wills were influenced by delusional disorder
  3. 3 Whether the 1989 Will created valid charitable trusts or a void purpose trust

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Branislav Kostic lacked testamentary capacity when making the 1988 and 1989 Wills and the 1984 Codicil, as his delusional disorder poisoned his affections and prevented him from properly appreciating the claims of natural beneficiaries. The delusions influenced the dispositions in the challenged wills, resulting in a disposal that would not have been made if his mind had been sound.

Court Disposition

Action succeeds; probate pronounced against the 1989 Will, 1988 Will, and 1984 Codicil; probate granted of the 1974 Will.

Orders

  • Probate of the 1989 Will, 1988 Will, and 1984 Codicil refused.
  • Probate of the 1974 Will granted.