Zorbas v Sidiropoulous (No 2)

This case concerned an appeal from a decision of the primary judge regarding the testamentary capacity of a testatrix who made a second will while gravely ill in hospital. The dispute arose between the plaintiff, who was not a close relative, and the defendant, the testatrix's nephew and the sole beneficiary of the second will. The primary judge was required to determine whether the testatrix possessed the necessary testamentary capacity to execute the second will, which altered an earlier will.

The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge had unduly intervened in the questioning of an expert witness, potentially denying natural justice, and whether it was open to the judge to reject uncontradicted expert evidence. The primary judge had extensively questioned Dr Obeid, a geriatrician who provided expert evidence opining that the testatrix was suffering from delirium and lacked testamentary capacity. This evidence was not opposed by other medical experts, but the primary judge had access to the testatrix's hospital records, which suggested conduct inconsistent with the symptoms of delirium as described by Dr Obeid.

The court's reasoning focused on the primary judge's role in assessing evidence, particularly expert testimony. While acknowledging the weight of uncontradicted expert evidence, the court found that the primary judge was entitled to conduct a "vigilant examination" of all the evidence, including the hospital records, to determine testamentary capacity. The judge's extensive questioning of Dr Obeid was considered within the bounds of his role to clarify complex medical issues relevant to the legal question of capacity, and did not amount to a denial of natural justice. The primary judge ultimately found that despite Dr Obeid's opinion, the circumstances surrounding the will's execution, its rational appearance, and the hospital records, when considered holistically, did not establish a lack of testamentary capacity.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court upholding the primary judge's decision. The costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.