IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CS No._____

IN BETWEEN

SOFIA VAZ

….PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

TARA GRANT

….DEFENDANTS

PARTIES

1. Petitioner Sofia Vaz, aged_______, resident of ____________________. Works as

______________. The Petitioner is the mother of late Sean Vaz (testator).

2. The Defendant Tara Grant, aged ____, resident of _______________. Works as

a_________________.

FACTS IN BRIEF

3. The Will dated 7 November, 2019 of Sean Edward Vaz, aged 34 (deceased) who died

on ____________ is being challenged through the present petition by the Petitioner

Sofia Vaz (mother of the testator). Sean Vaz is survived by his mother Sofia Vaz, his

father Arnop Vaz and his sister Natalie Sophie Ellison.

4. Tara Grant, who was visiting Sean at the time, called Heather William and Mellissa

Gordon to the hospital on 7 November, 2019, where hastily a Will was prepared. This

will is reproduced exactly from the hand written notes of defendant, Tara Grant.

5. According to this Will, the estate of Sean Vaz was to be equally distributed between

his mother Sofia Vaz, his father Arnop Vaz and his sister Natalie Sophie Ellison and

Tara Grant, with some specific gifts for Tara Grant. The custody of his dog ________

and access to his sperms stored in a sperm bank were also given to Tara Grant. Sofia

Vaz was appointed as the executor of the estate.

6. The Will is in a very rudimentary form and is a reproduction of the hand written notes

of the defendant Tara Grant. The Will doesn’t even mention or give details of the full

estate of the deceased.

7. In addition, it is pertinent to acknowledge that no retainer was signed by the testator

for the appointment of law firms Cullen Macleod by Sean Vaz. The testator did not

sign the General Appointment Act Authority Form, which is common and necessary

while appointing lawyers. In all communications with Heather William and Mellissa

Gordon, the defendant Tara Grant was the point of contact.

8. As per the doctors of ______________hospital, Sean Vazs was bedridden, and in a

palliative state, thus incapacitated to make a Will, he was highly sedated and thus in a

state of being influenced.

9. Sean Vaz was dating the defendant Tara Stephanie Grant at the time of his death. The

two used to spend some time together and were seeing each other on and off for a

year, however the two were not de facto relationship.

10. The Defendant was in fact in de facto relationship with another man, Mr. Cole since

2016 and was cheating on her de facto partner with Sean Vaz.
11. While Sean Edward Vaz was alive, the Defendant had no intention of marrying or

living with him. By giving him false promises, she induced the deceased in his non-

communicable state to include her in his will. 

12. The deceased mentioned to his mother Sofia Vaz about a month prior to his death that

he wished not to leave a Will.

THE DECEASED LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY

13. At the time, the deceased was not mentally alert, he did not know what day it was or

how much money he had in his bank account. A crucial point to note is that the

deceased did not specify or list his assets in his will. In Banks v Goodfellow, LR 5

QB 549 the Court held that "It is essential to the exercise of such a power that a

testator shall understand the nature of the act and its effects; shall understand the

extent of the property of which he is disposing; shall be able to comprehend and

appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect; and, with a view to the latter

object, that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, pervert his sense of

right, or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties that no insane delusion shall

influence his will in disposing of his property and bring about a disposal of it which,

if the mind had been sound, would not have been made.”

THE DECEASED WAS UNDER UNDUE INFLUENCE FROM THE

DEFENDANT

14. The Will was not created out of free will or violation of the deceased. While he was

receiving treatment, the defendant was being pressured to be included in his Will. The

demised acceded to the pressure for the sake of a quiet life.

15. In Edwards v. Edwards [2007] All ER (D) 46, where it was held that “The physical

and mental strength of the testator are relevant factors in determining how much

pressure is necessary in order to overbear the will. The will of a weak and ill person

may be more easily overborne than that of a hale and hearty one.”

16. It appears that the defendant does not intend to conceive any offspring using Sean

Vaz's sperm, and she has not yet conceived using his sperm, and only pressurised him

to write a will, with a promise to bear his children and passing on his legacy.

THE DECEASED HAD NO INTENTION OF WRITING A WILL

17. Sean Vaz had confided in his mother Sofia Vaz, early in October 2019 and expressed

his wishes of not writing a Will to dispose of the property.    The early part of October

2019, Sean Vaz confided in Sofia Vaz that he did not want to write a Will to disburse

the property.

18. The testator, Sean, was afflicted with __________, which meant he knew that his

condition was fatal; under these circumstances, he could have created a Will in

advance, however, the Will was created right at the last minute, indicating that he had

no intention of creating a Will in the first place itself. It is imperative to note that the

deceased had informed his mother that he would not be leaving a Will. These facts

indicate that the testator did not possess animus testandi.

SIGNATURE OF THE DECEASED DO NOT MATCH

19. There exist marked difference Sean Vaz signature on ID cards and that on the Will

dated 7 November, 2019.

LAWYERS OR WITNESSES WERE NOT APPOINTED BY THE DECEASED

 20. Sean Vaz did not sign a retainer with law firm Cullen Macleod for the appointment of

the law firm. The General Appointment Act authority form was not signed by Sean

Vaz. The defendant Tara Grant was the main contact in all communications with the

lawyers, and the will is an exact replica of the notes that defendant, Tara Grant, wrote.

21. It all shows that the lawyers had failed to establish that demised testator was not under

any influence.

22. In Birch v Birch [2020] QCA 31 it held that “the duty of a solicitor is to protect the

donor against himself, and not merely against the personal influence of the donee, in

the particular transaction.” The court further stated “that if the solicitor was not so

satisfied then the duty is to advise his client not to go on with the transaction, and to

refuse to act further for him if they persist.”

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the present

case this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

1. Declare the Will dated 7, November, 2019 to be invalid as the testator lacked

testamentary capacity at the time the Will was signed.

2. Pass any order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

Sofia Vaz

Plaintiff
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN BETWEEN

SOFIA VAZ

….PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

TARA GRANT

….DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sofia Vaz, aged __, _______________(address) _________________(occupation) do

hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am authorized by the Plaintiff, to inter alia depose, file, verify, and institute

proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff and as such am aware of the facts and

circumstances of the case and therefore competent to swear the present Affidavit.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying Reply to Application

which have been drafted by the Counsel under my instructions and as such as true and
 correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on the records maintained

by the Plaintiff and nothing has been concealed there from.

3. The contents of the same shall be read as part and parcel of this Affidavit and are not

being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

DEPONENT

This declaration is true and I know it is an offence to make a declaration knowing that it is

false in material particular. This declaration is made under the Oaths, Affidavit and Statutory

Declarations Act 2005.

at ____________

__day of February, 2022

In the presence of

_________________(Signature Witness)

_____________________

_________________(Name) (Sofia Vaz-signature)

_________________(Qualification)