A deliberate lie can be grounds to set aside a will in Victoria. The doctrine is called fraudulent calumny: someone lies to the will maker about another person, and that lie, not pressure or incapacity, is why that person is left out or given less. In 2026 Victoria's Supreme Court let such a claim proceed to trial. Challenges are usually raised by caveat before probate is granted, so act quickly.
In this article
- What is fraudulent calumny?
- How is fraudulent calumny different from undue influence?
- What did the Supreme Court of Victoria decide in 2026?
- What would you need to prove?
- How does this fit with contesting a will generally?
- What should will makers and families take from this?
- How we help
- Common questions
What is fraudulent calumny?
Fraudulent calumny is a form of testamentary fraud. It arises where a person, often a family member or someone close to the will maker, deliberately tells the will maker something false and damaging about another person, knowing it to be false or not caring whether it is true, in order to turn the will maker against them. If the will maker believes the lie and, because of it, cuts that person out of the will or leaves them significantly less than they otherwise would have, the resulting will, or the affected part of it, can be set aside. The will maker's testamentary capacity is not in question. What matters is that their own decision was built on a false foundation someone else deliberately created.
Courts recognise that direct proof of a deliberate lie is rare: the conversation usually happened in private, and the will maker has since died and cannot describe what they were told. Fraudulent calumny can be inferred from surrounding circumstances instead, such as the timing of a will change, the closeness of the relationship between the accused person and the will maker, and independent evidence about whether the claims made about the excluded beneficiary were true.
How is fraudulent calumny different from undue influence?
The two doctrines are often confused because both can result in a will being set aside despite the will maker having full capacity, but they attack different things. Undue influence involves pressure or coercion so severe that the will maker's own free will is overborne, so the document does not reflect their wishes at all. Fraudulent calumny does not require any pressure. The will maker exercises their own free will throughout: they decide, of their own accord, based on information someone else deliberately falsified. Undue influence asks whether the will maker was forced, while fraudulent calumny asks whether the will maker was deliberately deceived.
What did the Supreme Court of Victoria decide in 2026?
In Re the Estate of Iovenitti [2026] VSC 106, caveators opposing a grant of probate challenged the deceased's final will on several grounds, including fraudulent calumny. The executors applied to have the caveators' objections struck out or summarily dismissed before trial, arguing that the claims could not succeed. The Court refused, finding that the caveators had established a prima facie case worthy of investigation on all the grounds pleaded, including fraudulent calumny. Reporting on the decision describes it as the first reported Victorian case to expressly accept fraudulent calumny as a viable basis for challenging a will's validity.
Wondering whether a will you are dealing with, or your own will, could be exposed to a claim like this? Call (03) 9125 8355 or send an enquiry.
It is worth being precise about what this decision does and does not do. The Court did not find that the will was the product of fraudulent calumny, and it did not decide the substantive dispute. It decided only that the claim was strong enough to go to a full hearing rather than being dismissed at the first opportunity, and the trial of the underlying claim is still to come. What the decision does show is that a Victorian court was prepared to let fraudulent calumny go to trial as a standalone ground for challenging a will, a doctrine long accepted in England but previously largely untested in Australia.
What would you need to prove?
A fraudulent calumny claim generally needs to establish three things: that a false and damaging statement was made to the will maker about the person who missed out, that the person who made the statement knew it was false or was reckless about its truth, and that the false statement was the real reason for the will maker's decision, meaning the will would have been different without it. Because the conversation at the heart of the claim usually cannot be proven directly, these claims tend to be built from surrounding evidence: messages and emails around the time of the will change, the accounts of other family members and friends, medical and solicitor's file notes, and independent evidence about whether what was said to the will maker was true. A claim built on speculation or a strained relationship alone is unlikely to succeed. A claim supported by a documented pattern of specific, false accusations timed closely to a will change stands on much firmer ground.
How does this fit with contesting a will generally?
Fraudulent calumny is a validity challenge: if it succeeds, the affected will, or the relevant part of it, does not stand, and an earlier will or intestacy governs instead. That puts it in a different category from a family provision claim, which accepts the will is valid but argues it does not adequately provide for someone the deceased should have provided for. Our guide to contesting a will in Victoria explains both routes, including the strict time limits that apply to a family provision claim. A validity challenge like fraudulent calumny is usually raised early, before probate is granted, by lodging a caveat with the Supreme Court of Victoria, whose website sets out the procedure. Time is critical if you suspect a will was shaped by deliberate lies about you.
What should will makers and families take from this?
For anyone making or updating a will, the practical lesson is caution around significant changes made in isolation, particularly where they follow serious allegations about a family member that have not been checked. A written note of the reasons behind a significant change, kept with the will, and a conversation with an independent lawyer who has not heard only one side of the story, both help protect a will maker's real wishes from later challenge, and help demonstrate, if it is ever questioned, that the decision was their own. For anyone who suspects they were cut out of a will, or given far less than expected, because someone lied about them, the message is to act quickly and start gathering evidence: messages, witnesses and anything that shows what was said and when.
How we help
Spencer Alexander Lawyers advises will makers on structuring a will so that their decisions are properly recorded and harder to challenge later, and advises beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries who believe a will does not reflect what the deceased truly intended. If you are concerned that a will was shaped by deliberate lies, or you want your own will to be harder to challenge this way, early advice matters because validity challenges are usually time critical. Learn more about our wills and estates practice.
Common questions
What is fraudulent calumny?
A doctrine that lets a will be challenged where someone deliberately told the will maker a lie about another person, knowing it was false, causing the will maker to exclude that person or leave them less than they otherwise would have. The will maker's capacity is not in question. What is challenged is the false information their decision was based on.
How is fraudulent calumny different from undue influence?
Undue influence involves pressure so severe it overrides the will maker's own free will. Fraudulent calumny does not require pressure. The will maker decides freely, but their decision is based on a deliberate lie someone else told them.
Has an Australian court accepted a fraudulent calumny claim?
A Victorian Supreme Court decision in 2026 refused to strike out a fraudulent calumny claim, finding it raised an arguable case worthy of a full hearing. Legal commentary has described it as the first reported Victorian case to treat the doctrine as a viable ground to challenge a will. The underlying claim itself is still to be decided at trial.
What should I do if I think a will was influenced by lies about me?
Get advice quickly. A validity challenge like fraudulent calumny is usually raised by lodging a caveat before probate is granted, so timing matters. Start gathering any evidence of what was said, when, and by whom, including messages, witnesses and anything that shows the claims made were false.
Concerned a will you are involved with was shaped by deliberate lies, or want to protect your own will from a claim like this? Call (03) 9125 8355 or send an enquiry.
Sources: Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), sections 58, 91 and 99.
This guide reflects the law applying in Victoria as at September 2026. It is general information only, not legal advice, and does not take your circumstances into account.
