The Public Trustee v Brian Trevor Poulter as executor of the Will of Lily May Sheridan

[2003] WASC 233

THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE -v- BRIAN TREVOR POULTER as executor of the Will of LILY MAY SHERIDAN [2003] WASC 233

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 233
Case No:	CIV:1182/2002	Heard:	13 NOVEMBER 2003
Coram:	JOHNSON J	Delivered:	25/11/03
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order pronouncing for Will in solemn form
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE BRIAN TREVOR POULTER as executor of the Will of LILY MAY SHERIDAN
Catchwords:	Wills Validity Testamentary capacity Whether testator had mental capacity Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Wills Act 1970, s 14(1)
Case References:	Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558 Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 Bull v Fulton (1942) 66 CLR 295 Collins by her next friend Poletti v May [2000] WASC 29 Crago v McIntyre (1976) 1 NSWLR 729 Donaldson v Harvey & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970304, 17 June 1997 Du Maurier v Weschler [2001] NSWSC 4 In the Estate of Griffith, unreported; NSWCA; CA 40495 of 94; 7 June 1995 Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439 Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE -v- BRIAN TREVOR POULTER as executor of the Will of LILY MAY SHERIDAN [2003] WASC 233 CORAM : JOHNSON J HEARD : 13 NOVEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 25 NOVEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1182 of 2002

MATTER : Will and Estate of Reginald Charles Sheridan (Dec) BETWEEN : THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE

Plaintiff

AND

BRIAN TREVOR POULTER as executor of the Will of LILY MAY SHERIDAN
Defendant

Catchwords:

Wills - Validity - Testamentary capacity - Whether testator had mental capacity - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Wills Act 1970, s 14(1)

Result:

Order pronouncing for Will in solemn form

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D L Jones
Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Public Trustee
Defendant : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558
Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549
Bull v Fulton (1942) 66 CLR 295
Collins by her next friend Poletti v May [2000] WASC 29
Crago v McIntyre (1976) 1 NSWLR 729
Donaldson v Harvey & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970304, 17 June 1997
Du Maurier v Weschler [2001] NSWSC 4
In the Estate of Griffith, unreported; NSWCA; CA 40495 of 94; 7 June 1995
Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439

Case(s) also cited:

Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277


(Page 3)

1 JOHNSON J: The plaintiff is the sole executor of the Will of Reginald Charles Sheridan ("the deceased"). The Will was executed on 29 May 1990 ("the 1990 Will"). An application for a grant of probate in common form was made, but rejected because an issue was raised as to the deceased's testamentary capacity. The Registrar determined that the 1990 Will was suitable only for proof in solemn form. These proceedings were then commenced seeking an order that the Court pronounce for the force and validity of the 1990 Will in solemn form.

2 The deceased died on 30 May 1992. At the time of his death he lived at the St George's Nursing Home in Menora. He had married Lily May Handley ("Mrs Sheridan") on 1 May 1988. Affidavit evidence placed before the Court indicated that the deceased had previously made a Will dated 18 September 1982 ("the 1982 Will") and one dated 4 July 1984 ("the 1984 Will"). The deceased's marriage had the effect of revoking all prior wills: s 14(1) Wills Act1970. Mrs Sheridan died after the deceased on 28 January 1997. Well prior to even the deceased's death, Mrs Sheridan suffered from a serious disintegration of her mental health. Letters of administration of her estate were granted to the defendant on 30 December 1997. As the marriage revoked the deceased's former Wills, and Mrs Sheridan outlived him, the effect of a finding of testamentary incapacity at the time the deceased made the 1990 Will is that the deceased will be found to have died intestate and the sole beneficiary of his estate will be Mrs Sheridan. The defendant, as executor of the Will of Mrs Sheridan, has filed a notice that he does not intend to enter an appearance in this matter and shall abide by the decision of the Court.

3 The issue of testamentary capacity arose from the inclusion in the death certificate of a reference to "Alzheimer's disease (years)". As a result, the Registrar issued a requisition to the plaintiff to obtain an affidavit from the deceased's doctor.

4 In his affidavit sworn 17 September 1992, Dr Jeffrey Canham La Valette deposed to the fact that the deceased consulted him on a regular basis from 1984 until November 1990. Dr La Valette stated that the deceased had multiple problems with hypertension, congestive cardiac failure and angina. He also suffered from recurrent anxiety and depression. Dr La Valette further concluded that that the deceased "could possibly have had early Alzheimers [sic] disease".

5 Dr La Valette noted that as early as the 2 August 1984 the deceased seemed confused and depressed. He had been wandering off

(Page 4)

from his home for no reason and Dr La Valette admitted him to Wanneroo Hospital for investigation. After this the deceased seemed to settle down for some time, although he continued to have problems with hypertension and angina. On 6 February 1989 Dr La Valette was consulted by the deceased who complained bitterly about his wife's daughter-in-law's interference in his home affairs. He also told him that his wife was getting quite forgetful. By December 1989 the deceased was again showing signs of forgetfulness as he had lost his wallet. On 28 February 1990 he again attended the surgery and complained to another doctor that he felt his wife was poisoning him by mixing up his tablets. He also maintained that his wife was giving him dog food.

6 The deceased consulted Dr La Valette on 22 May 1990 and told him that he was feeling bad. He was weepy and depressed. He tended to ramble on and spoke about his wife who was in Osborne Lodge. However, during the course of the conversation he tended to forget what he was talking about. Dr La Valette concluded:

"At the date of his said Will I doubt that the said deceased would have understood the nature of a Will, would have been aware of the nature of his assets and would have been aware of the possible consequences of any claims that could have been made against his estate.

In my opinion the said deceased lacked the requisite testamentary capacity at the date of his said Will."

7 It can be seen that Dr La Valette's conclusion that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity is based on a doubt that the deceased had the requisite capacity to understand the nature of a Will, to be aware of his assets and aware of the claims to which he ought to give effect.

8 As I understand it, the opinion of Dr La Valette is the primary factor in the Registrar's determination that the Will was suitable only for proof in solemn form.

9 Before considering the balance of the evidence available to the Court, it is necessary to identify the legal principles which apply when determining testamentary capacity.

10 A duly executed Will, rational on its face, is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary to be that of a person of competent understanding: see Bull v Fulton (1942) 66 CLR 295 at 343; Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439 at 453; In the Estate of Griffith,

(Page 5)

unreported; NSWCA; CA 40495 of 94; 7 June 1995, per Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Handley JA, at 5. Where the onus is displaced, the onus falls on the proponent of the Will to demonstrate that the testator has testamentary capacity: Bull v Fulton at 343; Donaldson v Harvey & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970304, 17 June 1997, per Parker J, at 6. The standard of proof required of the proponent of a Will is the ordinary civil standard of proof: see Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558, per Isaacs J, at 570 - 571.

11 In circumstances where the Court is often confronted with competing affidavit material on the issue of capacity it is important to recognise that a residual doubt about testamentary capacity is not sufficient to displace the presumption of testamentary capacity. In Worth v Clasohm the High Court held at 453:

"A doubt being raised as to the existence of testamentary capacity at the relevant time, there undoubtedly rested upon the plaintiff the burden of satisfying the conscience of the court that the testatrix retained her mental powers to the requisite extent. But that is not to say that he was required to answer the doubt by proof to the point of complete demonstration, or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal standard of proof has no place in the trial of an issue as to testamentary capacity in a probate action. The effect of a doubt initially is to require a vigilant examination of the whole of the evidence which the parties place before the court; but, that examination having been made, a residual doubt is not enough to defeat the plaintiff's claim for probate unless it is felt by the court to be substantial enough to preclude a belief that the document propounded is the will of a testatrix who possessed sound mind, memory and understanding at the time of its execution."

12 The classic statement of testamentary capacity can be found in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 where Cockburn CJ set out at 565 the factors which are essential to the exercise of testamentary power. Those factors can be summarised as follows:

(1) A testator shall understand the nature of the act and its effects;

(2) A testator shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing;

(Page 6)

(3) A testator shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect;

(4) No disorder of mind or insane delusions shall poison the exercise of his natural faculties.

See also Du Maurier v Weschler [2001] NSWSC 4 at 39.

13 In relation to understanding the nature of the act and its effect, as Knox CJ and Starke J observed in Bailey v Bailey at 567, all that is required at the time of the signing of the Will is that the testator's mind and memory is sufficiently sound to enable him to know and to understand the business in which he was engaged at the time he executed his Will.

14 Further, in applying the factors identified in Banks v Goodfellow, it must be kept in mind that it is not enough for the testator to know and understand how he is leaving his property when he executed his Will. He must also possess sufficient capacity to appreciate what his property is and recognise the persons who have a moral claim upon him and, more importantly for present purposes, a capacity to exercise a balanced judgment as to such claims: Crago v McIntyre (1976) 1 NSWLR 729 at 740; cited with approval by Owen J in Collins by her next friend Poletti v May [2000] WASC 29 at [61].

15 In determining testamentary capacity, consideration should also be given to the nature of the Will itself regarded from the point of simplicity or complexity, or of its rational or irrational provisions, its exclusion or non-exclusion of beneficiaries: Bailey v Bailey, above, at 571, per Isaacs J.

16 I turn now to consider the evidence put before the Court to establish the validity of the Will and the codicil. In the affidavit of scripts, Shaun Conlin deposes to the fact that the Public Trustee has copies of the 1982 Will and the instructions and a handwritten draft of the 1984 Will. The deponent also annexes to the affidavit of scripts the instructions dated 18 May 1990 for the 1990 Will, the updated notes of the deceased dated 29 May 1990 and a handwritten draft of the 1990 Will. It can be seen from these documents that the beneficiaries under the 1982 Will were the deceased's former wife, his daughter and his grandchildren. His former wife was provided for only on the basis that at the time of his death there had been no property settlement under the Family Law Act. The sole beneficiary of the 1984 Will was the deceased's daughter with a gift over to his grandchildren.

(Page 7)

17 The instructions for the 1990 Will consist of a handwritten foolscap page which sets out information about the deceased's family, including full names and addresses and identifies a percentage distribution to particular individuals. There are further instructions contained in a Public Trustee Office standard form document. Contrary to the instruction at the top of that document that it is to be completed in the testator's own handwriting, it seems that it was in fact written by the Wills Officer who took the instructions. The Wills Officer, Clifford Squib, deposes to the fact that he interviewed the deceased on Friday, 18 May 1990 at his home and took instructions from him for the preparation of his Will. The deceased produced to him handwritten details (which would appear to be the handwritten foolscap page) which were thoroughly discussed with the deceased. The instructions on the standard form document include the deceased's occupation as a retired painter and an acknowledgment that the deceased had lodged a previous Will with the Public Trustee. The deceased also identifies the date of his marriage as being in 1985 and gives his wife's full name and notes that she is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and lives in a nursing home. Significantly, he identifies his property and whether the property is owned jointly or solely. Based on the content of those instructions the deceased was aware that his wife would take the assets held jointly which he identified as the home and the contents of a bank account. Further, the deceased provides instructions as to why his son Stuart is disinherited and why his daughter is not to receive more than 50 per cent. The deceased is able to recall that he already provided for her by contributing $11,000 towards her home.

18 It can be seen that these instructions are detailed, appear from the other evidence to be substantially accurate and are the product of some thought in relation to the exercise of making a new Will. Mr Squibb deposes to the fact that he can recall the interview with the deceased and can also recall that he discussed at length with him the provisions of his intended Will. He was satisfied that the deceased had the capacity to execute the Will. He also discussed with the deceased the reasons for the exclusion of certain members of his family from the Will. Significantly, Mr Squibb states that there was no other person present when he interviewed the deceased. This allows the Court to conclude that the detailed information provided was coming from the deceased and not from some family member on his behalf.

19 The Will which was ultimately prepared and executed pursuant to these instructions separates the estate into 100 equal parts and distributes various parts to the deceased's sisters, to his daughter, to his

(Page 8)

grandchildren and a larger proportion to one particular grandchild. Other beneficiaries are Mrs Sheridan's grandchildren and great grandchildren as well as the St Peter's Anglican Church in Wanneroo to be applied towards the Vestry Building Trust Fund. Even in relation to the bequest to his church there is some specificity involved suggestive of a person who has given considerable thought to the exercise.

20 In my view, there is nothing in the content of the instructions, or the circumstances in which they were taken, or indeed in the 1990 Will itself, which dispels the presumption of sanity and there is much to support it.

21 In addition to the affidavit evidence of Dr La Valette, the other evidence which casts doubt on the deceased's testamentary capacity is the affidavit of Helen Poulter, the wife of the defendant who is the son of Mrs Sheridan. As there is another Mrs Poulter who has filed an affidavit in these proceedings, I will refer to each of them by their full name.

22 Helen Poulter makes her affidavit in the belief that the deceased did not have testamentary capacity at the time he executed his Will. She states that in February 1989 she became concerned at the erratic behaviour of both the deceased and Mrs Sheridan. In particular, the deceased was becoming very forgetful and constantly confused Helen Poulter with his own daughter. Helen Poulter states that she tried to explain to the deceased that he needed to take precautions in order to protect his wife from wandering off and becoming lost. However, she does not believe that she succeeded in making him understand the importance of taking such precautions as Mrs Sheridan was still wandering off at night and on several occasions the police were called in to search for her.

23 Helen Poulter not only attributes Mrs Sheridan's wandering behaviour to a failure on the deceased's part to take adequate precautions, but also connects that failure with an inability to understand the need to do so. I am not convinced that such a conclusion is fair and reasonable and I would require more evidence than mere assertion before I would be prepared to draw such a conclusion. People such as Mrs Sheridan who are suffering from Alzheimer's disease can on occasions evade even the most mentally alert and physically capable carers. Further, a failure to take the necessary precautions can arise from occasional forgetfulness which is not necessarily a sign of mental incapacity.

(Page 9)

24 As a consequence of these events, Helen Poulter went to see Dr La Valette in order to discuss the declining mental capabilities of both the deceased and his wife. Dr La Valette suggested that Mrs Sheridan be placed in a nursing home temporarily in order to give the deceased time to improve. Even Helen Poulter concedes that it was her actions in speaking with Dr La Valette which precipitated the deceased's complaint to Dr La Valette that she was interfering in his affairs. To that extent, at least, his complaint of interference by Helen Poulter cannot be taken as indicative of mental incapacity.

25 Helen Poulter further deposes that the deceased requested that Mrs Sheridan be permitted to return home about three weeks after her admission to the nursing home. Mrs Sheridan's doctors are said by Helen Poulter to have granted the request on the condition that the deceased remembered to keep the gates and doors locked. She further states that "it is my understanding that, within days, … [the deceased] was forgetting to lock the gates and doors and, hence, Lillian was again wandering off and becoming lost". It is apparent that Helen Poulter is not giving direct evidence of these events.

26 Helen Poulter further states that at around this time the deceased's rector, Mr Brain, requested that Helen Poulter and her husband meet with him at the deceased's house in order that he could air his concerns in regard to the deteriorating mental state of Mrs Sheridan and the deceased. The priest told her that the deceased was constantly calling upon him for assistance. She remembers the priest telling her that he had arranged a care unit at the Church of Christ for the deceased and wanted their assistance in convincing the deceased to go along with this arrangement. By about March 1990 Helen Poulter was becoming increasingly concerned that both Mrs Sheridan and the deceased could be taken advantage of financially as a result of their declining mental faculties. She believes her concern in relation to the deceased and his wife was vindicated when in August 1991 a nursing hostel assistant stole money from the deceased by filling out withdrawal forms for him to sign. A newspaper article of that incident was annexed to her affidavit. I note in that article that the deceased said in his police statement that the offender, who was his carer, had permission to withdraw money on his behalf, but only to pay his bills. Whilst the deceased has clearly been taken advantage of, again it does not follow that his trust in his carer suggests mental incapacity.

27 Helen Poulter's concerns about the deceased must also be considered in light of the other evidence that the deceased was suffering

(Page 10)

from anxiety and depression and was concerned about the deteriorating condition of his wife. That other evidence also suggests that the deceased's behaviour improved once his wife was moved to a nursing home and he was relieved of the responsibility for her care. There is also evidence that some of the complaints made by the deceased, which on first impression are suggestive of delusion, had some basis in fact.

28 One source of such evidence is the affidavit of Susan Poulter, the wife of Stephen Poulter, who is Mrs Sheridan's grandson. She deposes to the fact that her husband was very close to his grandmother and, as a result, Susan Poulter and her husband saw the deceased regularly and knew him well. Susan Poulter states that although Mrs Sheridan was completely mentally capable when she married the deceased, her mental health began to deteriorate steadily after their marriage, as evidenced by her behaviour. Susan Poulter states that the deceased took his responsibility towards his wife very seriously and worried about her considerably.

29 In early 1990 Mrs Sheridan's mental health had deteriorated to the extent that the deceased was no longer able to care for her at home and he arranged for her to be admitted to Osborne Lodge. Helen Poulter maintains that she was responsible for Mrs Sheridan's move, but I do not believe anything turns on that point. According to Susan Poulter, the deceased found the decision to place Mrs Sheridan in a nursing home to be extremely difficult and it caused him great anxiety. However, after he had made the decision his anxiety ceased. Significantly, Mrs Sheridan moved into Osborne Lodge before the deceased made his Will in May 1990.

30 In her affidavit Susan Poulter addresses the complaints made by the deceased to Dr La Valette's colleague that Mrs Sheridan was poisoning him by mixing up his tablets and that she was giving him dog food. Susan Poulter states that on one occasion she saw Mrs Sheridan crush some of the deceased's prescription pills and stir them into his tea instead of artificial sweetener. On another occasion she saw Mrs Sheridan hand Stephen Poulter a cup of tea with dog biscuits floating in it. Susan Poulter explained that she has no doubt that Mrs Sheridan acted in this way because of the deterioration in her mental health. Susan Poulter suggests that the fact that the deceased spoke of these matters is not evidence of any lack of capacity on his part.

(Page 11)

31 Susan Poulter also states that, shortly before his death, the deceased was interviewed by the police in relation to the prosecution of his carer for stealing from him. He was to be a witness at the trial and there was no suggestion by the police that the deceased was incapable of giving evidence. However, the deceased died before the trial. I do not consider the fact that a statement was taken from the deceased and that it was intended to call him as a witness, really has much impact on the issue of his mental capacity other than to suggest that he was capable of giving a coherent account of events. Ultimately, the issue of his capacity to give evidence would be addressed at trial.

32 According to Susan Poulter, the deceased made his Will when he had arranged for the sale of the property he owned with Mrs Sheridan and he told Susan Poulter that he needed the Will so that his half share of the sale proceeds would be dealt with and also that Mrs Sheridan's half share would be dealt with as part of her estate. Again, this indicates a clear capacity to identify his assets as well as an appreciation of Mrs Sheridan's interest in the property and what should happen to her share of the proceeds of sale. Susan Poulter concluded:

"I have absolutely no doubt that when he made his will … the deceased understood the nature and effect of a will and the general state of his financial affairs and the persons he should consider when making a will. He discussed all these things with me."

33 In my view, Susan Poulter's affidavit contains first-hand evidence indicative of mental capacity at the relevant time and in the relevant context. It also alleviates the concerns arising from the deceased's allegations about Mrs Sheridan's conduct.

34 Evidence was also adduced from the rector of St Peter's Anglican Church in Wanneroo, Peter Brain, who was one of the subscribing witnesses to the 1990 Will. He met the deceased and Mrs Sheridan when he became rector in October 1988. They regularly attended church services and other parish events and Mr Brain became close friends with them. When he first met them, Mrs Sheridan showed signs of decreased mental capability and, subsequently, her mental health deteriorated steadily. According to Mr Brain, the deceased took his responsibility towards his wife very seriously and worried about her considerably. He often asked for advice as to what he should or could do with respect to her.

(Page 12)

35 Mr Brain states that he saw the deceased frequently until his death and, in his view, he conversed and behaved normally and was completely mentally capable. Mr Brain acknowledges that he did on some occasions show signs of anxiety and some confusion, but these symptoms were not of lengthy duration and usually were caused by his worry for his wife. According to Mr Brain, once Mrs Sheridan moved into a nursing home, which occurred before the execution of the 1990 Will, the symptoms ceased.

36 Mr Brain can remember witnessing the 1990 Will. He remembers that there was a parish event on and that there were people in the church kitchen and that the deceased arrived unexpectedly and asked him to witness his Will. One of the other parishioners, Elizabeth Dreger, was one of the people in the church kitchen and Mr Brain asked her to be the other subscribing witness. Mr Brain states that the deceased clearly understood that he was making a will and he was not showing any signs of anxiety or confusion at the time.

37 Mr Brain's comments in relation to the deceased's behaviour, and the circumstances of witnessing the 1990 Will, are supported by the evidence of the other subscribing witness, Elizabeth Dreger. Significantly, Mrs Dreger is a retired nurse. She worked as a nurse for over 40 years with considerable experience in nursing elderly and incapable patients. She has also studied the latest aspects of geriatric nursing in Canada and England. She became a parishioner and a regular attendee of St Peter's Anglican Church in Wanneroo in February 1988. Shortly after becoming a parishioner she met the deceased and his wife. When she first met them, Mrs Sheridan showed signs of an altered mental state, but the deceased appeared to be completely mentally capable and not suffering from any physical or mental infirmity. Subsequently Mrs Sheridan's mental health deteriorated steadily. Mrs Dreger observed that the deceased took his responsibility towards his wife very seriously and was extremely caring and understanding towards her. She saw the deceased frequently until his death and considered him to be completely mentally capable. He conversed and behaved normally. He was sometimes very tired, but, in Mrs Dreger's view, this was caused by his worry about his wife and caring for her. He showed no signs of any altered mental state before his death.

38 Mrs Dreger can remember witnessing the 1990 Will. She states that the deceased told her that he wanted to have two people witness his signature on a legal document. She was not aware that the document

(Page 13)

was his Will. However, Mrs Dreger maintains that as part of her training as a nurse she had learned the importance of signing legal documents and would not witness the signature of anyone who she believed or who appeared to be mentally incapable or not fully understanding of what he or she was doing. She states that she had no hesitation in witnessing the deceased's signature because she was, and is, firmly of the view that he was completely mentally capable.

39 Because of her background, I believe that significant weight can be attached to her assessment of the deceased, particularly in view of the fact that she knew him for over a decade and dealt with him at the time of the execution of the 1990 Will. Further support for his capacity can be found in her evidence that the deceased appreciated that he was signing a legal document.

40 In view of the affidavits obtained by the plaintiff from Susan Poulter, Mr Brain and Mrs Dreger, further information was sought from Dr La Valette. Having read those affidavits, Dr La Valette conceded that the deceased's complaints of his wife's conduct might well have been based on fact. However, he concluded that, based on his observations, there is no doubt in his mind that the deceased suffered from "reduced mental capacity". In a subsequent letter to the plaintiff, Dr La Valette stated that he had strong doubts that the deceased had sufficient insight and understanding to make a valid Will at the time that he did so. Of course, it does not follow that, even if a person suffers from reduced mental capacity, he is not capable at the relevant time of meeting the criteria identified in Banks v Goodfellow. Such a case would, however, necessitate a very close scrutiny of the surrounding circumstances.

41 In the result, notwithstanding Dr La Valette's concerns, I am persuaded that, at the relevant time, the deceased had the requisite capacity.

42 In Worth v Clasohm at 452 - 453 the Court concluded:

"After anxious consideration of the whole case we are of opinion that there is no sufficient reason for denying that a testatrix who appeared to so many competent observers to be completely sane, and made a completely rational will, lacked a sound disposing mind."

43 I take the same view. I consider Susan Poulter, Mr Brain and, in particular, Mrs Dreger to be competent observers who were well

(Page 14)

acquainted on a regular basis with the deceased and gave first-hand evidence of his behaviour and his appreciation of the exercise of executing a Will. Their observations are reinforced by the evidence of Mr Squibb, the detailed nature of the instructions provided to him by the deceased and the fact that there is nothing which raises concerns as to capacity in the terms of the Will itself. The instructions, the terms of the 1990 Will and the circumstances of its execution have all the hallmarks of a considered act by a mentally capable person.

44 I therefore pronounce for the force and validity of the Will of Reginald Charles Sheridan dated 29 May 1990 in solemn form.