Case Summary: Sorati & Anor v Sorati [2025] QSC 14

Keywords: testamentary capacity, Queensland Supreme Court, informal will, cognitive decline, will dispute, probate, Will Kit, Sorati case, succession law, intestacy, testamentary intent  

By Honest Grace Legal | Wills & Estates Law | August 2025

Subject

Court Rejects Will-Kit Will Due to Testator’s Failing Memory    

What Happened

Renato Sorati died in 2023, leaving behind a Will dated 5 August 2021 created using a “Will Kit.” This Will significantly reduced the inheritance for his sons and left most of the estate to his wife, Robyn Sorati. Renato had previously made a formal 2017 Will through a solicitor, which provided a more balanced distribution among family members, including his sons and stepdaughters. 

Renato’s wife and stepdaughter (the plaintiffs) applied for probate of the 2021 Will. Renato’s son Paul (the defendant) objected, arguing Renato lacked the mental capacity to make a valid will in 2021. 

Key Legal Issues

• Did Renato Sorati have testamentary capacity when he signed the 2021 Will? 

• Was the 2021 Will valid despite cognitive decline and potential undue influence? 

• Which Will - 2017 or 2021 - should govern the estate? 

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that Renato did not have testamentary capacity due to cognitive decline when he made the 2021 Will. The Court declined to grant probate of the 2021 document and instead upheld the 2017 Will, ordering it to be admitted to probate. 

Key Findings

• Testamentary Capacity Doubts: The judge found substantial evidence of cognitive decline between 2020 and 2022, including medical records showing memory loss, confusion, and anxiety. 

• Misunderstanding Legal Significance: Renato signed the 2021 Will under the mistaken belief - encouraged by others - that failing to do so would cause the State to take his estate. This showed he didn’t grasp the legal context, a key requirement for capacity. 

• Inconsistency in Instructions: Renato initially intended to benefit his stepdaughters if Robyn predeceased him, but the final 2021 Will omitted them entirely raising concerns about memory and intent. 

• Departure from Past Practice: Renato had always used lawyers for his Wills. His use of a Will Kit was a marked change, indicating possible cognitive impairment. 

• Observational vs. Medical Evidence: While some witnesses believed Renato “seemed sharp,” medical evidence pointed to fluctuating and declining cognition, undermining the reliability of lay observations. 

Outcome

• The 2021 Will was declared invalid. 

• The 2017 solicitor-prepared Will was upheld and granted probate. 

• The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs. 

Why This Case Matters

This case underscores the legal importance of testamentary capacity in will-making, particularly for elderly individuals. It highlights how informal wills, especially those made without legal advice, are vulnerable to challenges when cognitive decline is present. The decision reaffirms that even if a will appears rational on its face, it may still be invalid if the testator lacked a full understanding of their estate or who might have a rightful claim. 

For legal practitioners and families, the case illustrates why using experienced estate lawyers and having clear, contemporaneous medical assessments are critical when drafting wills in later life. 

Source

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QSC25-014.pdf