The court rejected evidence from a psychologist lacking medical qualifications, finding his reasoning opaque and his conclusions unsound. The judge reaffirmed that testamentary capacity hinges on the Banks v Goodfellow test—not a 'memory test' or speculation about later dementia.
Stanyer distils the lessons: when assessing historical capacity, solicitors must give detailed instructions, supply comprehensive background and ensure the expert can interpret medical evidence. Reports must address the testator’s health, context, and decision-making abilities clearly and objectively.
The case, she writes, exposes the risk of disrespecting the deceased with unfounded incapacity claims—and underscores the need for clarity, qualification and respect in expert testimony.
