Wild v Meduri

The appeal concerned a contested probate, with the primary judge having found that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity, specifically knowledge and approval of the will. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, particularly the credibility of witnesses, in light of contemporaneous medical records and expert opinions. The appeal also raised questions regarding the conduct of the solicitor who prepared the will and whether the primary judge erred in his assessment of that solicitor's evidence, given the solicitor was also acting for the respondents.

The court considered whether the primary judge had made a permissible inference under *Jones v Dunkel* concerning a witness who had provided affidavits but was not called by the respondents. The court also examined the use of direct speech in affidavits, where past conversations were recounted with the preface "words to the following effect," and whether this constituted admissible evidence. Furthermore, the court addressed findings made by the primary judge regarding equitable estoppel, proprietary estoppel, and estoppel by acquiescence, which were expressed in the alternative.

The primary judge's findings on testamentary capacity were based on a comprehensive assessment of witness credibility, viewed in the context of all the evidence, including medical records and expert views. The court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of the solicitor's evidence, noting that the solicitor's dual role did not automatically vitiate his evidence. The court also determined that the *Jones v Dunkel* inference was not applicable in the circumstances of the uncalled witness, who had significant mental health issues. The findings on estoppel were considered to be contingent and did not raise any issues of principle.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.