Lloyd v Jones & Ors

The claimant challenges the validity of a will executed by her mother, Doris Maglona Harris, on 26 February 2005. Mrs Harris died on 10 December 2010. She had two children, Mrs Lloyd and the third defendant Mr. John Harris, who is known as Ioan. I will refer to them as Sian and Ioan, as they have been throughout the case. The will was prepared without the involvement of a solicitor by the first defendant, Dr Parry Jones, who is a (now retired) GP and the niece of the deceased. It is in clear and simple terms which provide that:

There is no other will, so that if Sian's case is upheld and the court finds against the will she and Ioan would inherit the estate equally on intestacy. The estate was valued for probate at just under £600,000, of which £575,000 is represented by a farm, Pen Y Graig, on the coast near Aberporth and Newcastle Emlyn in South West Wales. Mrs Harris farmed in partnership with Ioan (and later Kathy) since the death of her husband. The farm land was not a partnership asset, but there are some potential issues about the extent of Mrs Harris's interest in partnership assets such as cattle and farm equipment which I do not need to determine now but may become relevant in the event of an intestacy. Part of the farm land was used for visiting caravans and campers, and a number of regular visitors were called by the defendants.

The will is challenged on grounds of lack of capacity and want of knowledge and approval of its terms. The claimant's case is, in summary, that Mrs Harris began to suffer mental decline from about 2001. By May 2004 when she was admitted to hospital after a collapse she was suffering from confusion, forgetfulness, aggression and strange delusions and had developed Alzheimer's type dementia. This was known to and discussed among the family, in particular between Sian and her brother, and between Sian and Dr Parry Jones. The claimant relies particularly on the fact that in July 2005, within 5 months of the making of the will, an application for Attendance Allowance was made by Mrs Harris's sister Sarah Jones ("Sally", Dr Parry Jones's mother) assisted by Dr Parry Jones, in which it was said that Mrs Harris was too ill or disabled to sign the form herself, was suffering from dementia and glaucoma and that she had suffered memory loss for two years, heard voices and suffered delusions, could not be left alone as she was prone to wandering and required supervision in the house day and night to take medication, put her to bed, and assist with personal care, feeding and use of the toilet. On her death, the causes noted on the death certificate were (1) bronchopneumonia and (2) dementia.

In relation to knowledge and approval, it is said that the circumstances in which the will was prepared and arrangements were made for execution by a relative without legal assistance excite suspicion, and that the will was not read over to Mrs Harris who could not by reason of her long term glaucoma read herself without a magnifying glass, which she did not have with her on the day of execution. No positive allegation of undue influence or duress is made, but Sian suggests in her evidence that Dr Parry Jones and Sally were influential over Mrs Harris and were hostile to and motivated against Sian because she had "married out" of the local Welsh speaking rural community, moving away to live with her English husband. Sian called her husband Mr. Michael Lloyd ("Mick") and Professor Robert Howard, the well known psychiatric expert, in support of her case.

Although the defence of the third and fourth defendants admits that Mrs Harris began to suffer Alzheimer's type dementia from about the time of her hospital admission in 2004, it was (somewhat strikingly) the evidence of all their family witnesses that this was not in fact the case, and that Mrs Harris did not suffer any mental decline either (as some said) at all, or until much later (various dates from 2008 onwards were suggested). In any event, it is their case that the will represented her long stated intention to leave the farm to Ioan and was prepared on her clear and specific instructions and was read and fully understood by her. They say that Mrs Harris had been on strained terms with Sian for many years, objecting in particular to Sian's relationship with a previous partner, and that Sian herself rarely visited her mother. The allegations of Mrs Harris's wandering, delusions, aggressive behaviour and inability to care for herself are entirely denied. Insofar as these are supported by the attendance allowance form Sally Jones and Dr Parry Jones seek to explain this away as either misunderstanding of what the form says or reference by them (justifiable according to them) to Mrs Harris's condition in 2004 rather than at the time the form was completed. Mr. Oughton suggested that they might be found to have exaggerated for the purpose of securing the allowance, but they both denied this.

The first and second defendants as executors take no position in the pleadings as to the validity of the will, though both gave evidence as witnesses for the third and fourth defendants. All the defendants gave evidence, and a number of others were called who met or dealt with Mrs Harris at different times and were able to speak to those occasions and how her capacity appeared to them. The defendants did not rely on any expert evidence.

The law was not in dispute between counsel. The test of capacity is the familiar one derived from Banks v Goodfellow, that at the time the will was made the testator:

It is accepted that on the facts a real doubt has been raised as to the existence of capacity such that those propounding the will, ie the third and fourth defendants, have the burden of satisfying me, on the balance of probabilities, that Mrs Harris had the required capacity. Likewise, the onus is on them to demonstrate, to the same standard, knowledge and approval, ie that Mrs Harris not only was capable of understanding but actually did understand the nature and contents of the document she signed, and that they represented her testamentary intentions. This is to be assessed on the basis of the evidence as a whole (Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430).

I propose to deal now with the lay evidence received. There was a great deal of such evidence covering a considerable period of time, so I shall as far as possible confine myself to the major episodes involved, and in relation to them to the extent to which they bear on the essential questions as to Mrs Harris's capacity and knowledge and approval at the time of execution of the will. It is clear that there are many areas of disagreement among the family members about the history of events and family relations in general, but I cannot and do not need to reach conclusions about all the detail of those disputes. In approaching the matter in this way I bear in mind that if Mrs Harris was suffering from Alzheimer's, it is a progressive and irreversible condition, but progression and severity of symptoms vary considerably between individuals and the essential question for the court will be whether in this particular case the effects on Mrs Harris by the date she executed the will were such that she lacked capacity at that time. Evidence of incidents before and after that time may be relied on to draw inferences as to her condition at the relevant time.

In many cases, relevant information can be gleaned from medical records, particularly if an individual has been assessed by clinicians specialising in mental health or memory loss. In this case the medical records available are confined to the hospital records covering the brief period in May 2004 when Mrs Harris was admitted, and in all other respects to the GP notes obtained from Dr Parry Jones's former practice (she is now retired). Those notes are, unfortunately, of a very poor quality. For the most part they were made by Dr Parry Jones herself or Mrs Jaqueline Jones, who was at the time a senior nurse at the practice. She is married to Mr. Walwyn Parry Jones, Dr Parry Jones's brother, and she and her husband witnessed the will.

Dr Parry Jones was the senior partner of a general practice in Newcastle Emlyn and acted herself as her aunt's GP. She accepted that General Medical Council guidance was that it was inappropriate for close relatives of a doctor to be patients at the doctor's practice, but said that as there was no other practice nearby she and her partners had decided that this guidance could not be applied. They must presumably also have decided that it was in order for an individual doctor to treat his or her own relatives. Dr Parry Jones saw her aunt frequently at the farm, sometimes purely socially but she was also in the habit of giving medical advice and prescribing medication during those visits. She accepts that the notes kept on computer should contain a record of these visits, of the patient's condition and reasons for any prescriptions, but it is clear they do not. Dr Parry Jones said she made notes on a pad of forms, which ought to have been transcribed or scanned into the computer records, but she was unable to produce any of them. Her successors at the practice have said they have provided all the records, but no such notes are included. There are thus very few notes that disclose what Mrs Harris's condition was, although there are various records of medication prescribed. Dr Parry Jones accepted that there should be such notes, not least so that if any other doctor saw Mrs Harris they would be properly informed as to her condition and current medication.

Prescriptions and reviews are often attributed to Jacqueline Jones, but she is not an authorised prescriber and maintained that she never would have prescribed anything herself or performed a clinical review. If an authorised clinician was involved, however, he or she cannot be identified from the records.

The result is that it is not safe to assume that these records contain all relevant information, and in particular that if they do not refer to some matter the claimant relies on, that omission weighs against the claimant's account.

Sian's evidence of her mother's condition was, in summary:

Mrs Harris was admitted to hospital at about 3.30 pm on 10 May, 2004. It appears she went with a handwritten referral letter from Dr Parry Jones (p764) in which she said "this lady collapsed today and had large haematemesis [vomiting blood]. She admits to having taken Aspirin for aches and pains over recent days but otherwise has no relevant medical history and takes no other medication…? Aspirin induced". Her admission notes (755) state that she had been feeling unwell for the past day and had "an episode of faint at home in the morning". The only current condition she was noted to be suffering from was "gastritis". Other notes (766) described her mobility, continence and eyesight as all "good", and that her cognition was "normal" (768). She was diagnosed as having suffered from a gastric ulcer secondary to aspirin (772), but later the cause was found to have been a helicobacter infection.

The handwritten notes (781) show that at 10 PM on the day of admission "daughter Sian visited". On the morning of 11 May Mrs Harris was found to have a low blood pressure, which was treated with a drip and apparently recovered. The note on the afternoon of that day include:

The notes of the following day (783) include:

A member of hospital staff did in fact complete a referral form on 11 May, 2004 which was sent to the local social services department (416). The referral form noted the reason for the request as being "requesting meals on wheels and personal care on return home." A contact assessment form completed by the social services department (421) included the following:

This referral form was chased by the hospital on 17 May (415) and allocated to a social worker to investigate on 18 May (428) but no action was in the end taken and no care package was provided, following a telephone call to the council made by Dr Parry Jones. Records obtained from the council include a case record (430) which says "Appointment arranged for 25/5/04, made contact with son" from which it appears that the allocated social worker was to have visited Mrs Harris at home on that date. There is however a note of a telephone call made to a duty social worker at 9:05 am on 25 May (429) which says "Dr Jones on visit there now. Feels that there are no problems. No need for you to visit." This was evidently relayed to the allocated social worker who cancelled his visit. The case record says "[telephone] message from Duty, GP (Dr Jones, niece) has visited client today she feels there are no problems, both client and son have therefore cancelled appointment. Telephone call to son. He does not feel the need for our input. I have explained to him that I will keep the case open for a couple of months, he has my name and contact number should the need arise." The final entry, made on 20 August, 2004, is that no contact has been made and the case is therefore closed.

When asked about these records, Dr Parry Jones was very reluctant to accept that the hospital considered that any care services were required. I note that in her first witness statement she blamed Sian for the fact that Mrs Harris was upset following her discharge from hospital and sought to give the impression she herself had not been involved at all in any suggestion of a referral to social services. She said (99):

“When I took Doris away from the hospital … she proved to be very upset indeed and it appeared that this was because her daughter Sian had arrived in the hospital … It seemed that Doris had overheard Sian talking to the staff and telling them that her mother was unduly fond of alcohol and a smoker. It appeared also that Sian had suggested that her mother ought to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. I also understand that Sian tried to persuade the hospital that her mother should be referred to Social Services for some kind of continuing care but my understanding is that this was rejected by the hospital as not necessary. This disturbed my aunt enormously and indeed once she had reached home she was in an agitated state for some time afterwards.”

In cross-examination Dr Parry Jones maintained, quite aggressively, that any notes on the referral form to the effect that Mrs Harris required assistance were only what Sian had said to the hospital staff and not their own opinion. I have no doubt that some of the information came from Sian, but it must be highly unlikely that the hospital staff would have made this referral simply parroting what they were told, particularly in circumstances in which it is evident from their own notes that it was contested by Ioan and an unnamed "niece" that any services were required. It is particularly unlikely that they would have recorded that Mrs Harris consented to the referral without verifying this with her directly or made any such referral without Mrs Harris's consent in circumstances in which her children were known to disagree about it.

Dr Parry Jones was initially unwilling to accept that she had made any visit to see Mrs Harris on the morning of 25 May or made any telephone call to the social services department to cancel the referral. Faced with the council's records, however, she had to accept that she must have done so. In giving these answers, it seemed to me that she completely reversed her position taken only moments before, for which her only explanation was "I wasn't aware of this [i.e. the records obtained from the Council]. When was this disclosed?" Without sight of those notes, I infer, she would have maintained her position.

In the circumstances, it seems to me that the council's notes show opposition by both Ioan and Dr Parry Jones to provision of social services help at home, consistent with the same opposition having been expressed by them at the hospital. I infer therefore that Dr Parry Jones was probably the "niece" referred to, rather than Ann Morgan, who was the only other candidate suggested. I do not consider that Dr Parry Jones would have forgotten that it was her who called the social services department to cancel the assessment visit, and I consider therefore that the account she gave in her first witness statement of this incident was deliberately misleading.

These records, in my view, provide some support for Sian's contention that her mother would have benefited from some additional support at home following her discharge in May 2004. They also show that there was disagreement between Sian and her brother at that time, and that Dr Parry Jones was prepared to intervene to take Ioan's side of that argument. They do not, however, provide any real support for Sian's suggestion that her mother's mental condition had significantly deteriorated by that date. There is no reference to hallucinations, hearing voices or wandering during the night, although according to Sian's evidence these episodes had begun well before that date. They show that Mrs Harris was not incontinent at that time.

It does not appear from these records that there can have been any mention of dementia at that time although, according to Sian, Dr Parry Jones had used that term at least in December 2003. I do not consider that the reference to Mrs Harris being "slightly confused" can indicate that staff at the hospital considered she was or might be suffering from dementia, particularly since their assessment was that her cognition was "good" and the social services referral made no reference to dementia or confusion, which would surely have been relevant. It is likely, therefore, that this was no more than an indication of some temporary effect, perhaps related to her low blood pressure earlier that day.

It was the evidence of several family members that Sian and Mrs Harris had quarrelled about the attempt to make a referral to social services, and that Mrs Harris had taken grave exception to Sian "trying to have her sectioned" while she was in hospital. The notes do not support any suggestion of such a quarrel, and given that staff reported that Mrs Harris had consented to the referral (and had every reason to be careful to check that she did) I think it unlikely that there was such a quarrel at the time. It may be that, by the time Ioan and Dr Parry Jones told the council that Mrs Harris did not want any services to be provided, she had changed her mind or been persuaded to change her mind.

Nor is there any reference in the hospital notes to Sian querying her mother's mental health in any way, let alone suggesting that she should be sectioned, which there surely would have been if such a suggestion had been made. According to Sian, there was only one area of disagreement, which was that as noted in the referral form she had told hospital staff (correctly, as other witnesses accepted) that Mrs Harris was a smoker, something which she did not like to acknowledge and had herself denied on admission.

Sally Jones and Dr Parry Jones were adamant that Mrs Harris had told them afterwards that Sian had tried to have her sectioned while she was in hospital. They both appeared to wish to distance themselves from this suggestion, saying that they did not have any direct knowledge of it but only that Doris had told them it was the case. Nevertheless, Dr Parry Jones referred to this in her witness statement as "the catastrophic incident… with Sian" as if it were a matter of fact, and treated it as the principal cause of Mrs Harris's subsequent distress and agitation. There is no evidence that Dr Parry Jones ever raised this issue with Sian in their subsequent meetings, which would be surprising if she really thought that Sian had sought a wholly unjustified Mental Health Act detention of her mother. This was one of a number of aspects of the evidence that in my view supported Sian's case that Dr Parry Jones was hostile to her. If Mrs Harris in fact thought Sian had tried to have her sectioned, it would seem that this was either an irrational belief on her part (which might itself be an indication of dementia) or perhaps something about which she had been misinformed. I should say that no suggestion was put to any witness that Mrs Harris had been falsely told this, or anything else about Sian, with a view to poisoning her mind against Sian.

The attendance allowance form is in 10 parts. Parts 1 to 9 are primarily intended to be completed by the person claiming the allowance, though there is provision for someone else to do so on their behalf. Part 10 is headed "statement from the person who knows best about you and how your illnesses or disabilities affect you". In this case, the form was completed mostly by Sally Jones, who provided her own details and ticked a box to say that that the reason she was completing the form was that Mrs Harris was "so ill or disabled they find it impossible to sign for themselves". This, she now acknowledges, was untrue. Part 10 was completed by Dr Parry Jones and dated 22 July 2005. Both Dr Parry Jones and Mrs Sally Jones said that Mrs Jones had completed her parts of the form before it was sent to Dr Parry Jones to complete Part 10.

In part 4 of the form, Sally Jones listed Mrs Harris's illnesses or disabilities and the period she had suffered from them as "Arthritis of the spine (10 years), Glaucoma (since age 45), Deafness (recent-last six months), Peptic Ulceration (18 months), Memory loss (two years)".

Mrs Jones attached a prescription reorder form dated 26 July 2005 which had evidently been printed by Dr Parry Jones's practice, by way of evidence of medication she was taking. There are some items on the list, including Venlafaxine, one of the antidepressants that Sian alleges was prescribed in order to mitigate the symptoms of anxiety arising from dementia. I note that that (and most of the other items) was said to have been "last ordered on 19/7/2004", almost exactly 12 months before. The form also included Xalatan eyedrops, which are accepted to be a suitable medication for treatment of glaucoma. It appears from the GP medical records that there was only ever one prescription for these eyedrops, which was made on that day, 26 July 2005, four days after Dr Parry Jones had completed and signed her part of the form. It would appear therefore that the prescription reorder form must have been given back to Mrs Jones with the completed form so that she could attach it and send it in to the local authority to claim the allowance.

In completing her part of the form, Sally Jones set out the following about Mrs Harris's condition:

Dr Parry Jones completed and signed Part 10, in which she said that she saw Mrs Harris "monthly" and listed her illnesses and disabilities as "Dementia, arthritis of the spine, glaucoma, peptic ulceration." This part of the form does not contain any statement verifying or confirming the information set out in parts 1 to 9, but clearly to the extent that Dr Parry Jones set out Mrs Harris's medical conditions in the same terms as her mother had done, she was confirming that information. She also had the opportunity on her part of the form to give her own statement of the effect of these conditions on Mrs Harris if she thought it was different from that which had been stated by her mother, but she did not do so.

Sally Jones's evidence was that the information she had provided was not an accurate description of Mrs Harris's condition at the time the form was completed or five months earlier when the will was signed. It was, she said, a description of her difficulties in the period of about two weeks after she left hospital in May 2004, when she was still recovering and was unusually weak and vulnerable. During that period, but not later except on isolated occasions, Ioan had slept over at the farmhouse to look after his mother. Mrs Harris was not deaf, but only hard of hearing as anyone her age would be. She was not suffering from memory loss but "we all can't remember names". The statement about memory loss for two years was, she accepted, a lie. The references to hearing voices were because there was a public footpath through the farm which was used by anglers walking down to the coast to fish at night, and Mrs Harris could hear them talking as they went past. If that was indeed what Mrs Jones was referring to, it was a wholly misleading presentation to say that Mrs Harris "frequently hears voices". The references to assistance provided by Ioan were, she said, only appropriate to periods when Mrs Harris was ill as she had been immediately after she left hospital, but otherwise "I may have exaggerated… she had good and bad days". In relation to "confusion" Mrs Jones said that Mrs Harris was not confused either in 2004 or 2005, and that she had only written this because Mrs Harris was worried in the period immediately after she had been in hospital.

Asked why she thought it appropriate to complete the form by reference to that period, Mrs Jones said that she had visited the offices of Age UK (formerly Age Concern) and been told that the form should be completed by reference to the applicant's worst condition at any point in the last two years. There is no documentary or other evidence that Age UK gave that advice either on that occasion or generally. It would be wholly inappropriate for them to have done so since, as Mr Rees pointed out, the relevant legislation (Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 ss 64-65) makes clear that the requirement to qualify for attendance allowance is that a person "is so severely disabled physically or mentally" that he requires the relevant assistance by day and night, and that he must have been in that condition for at least the previous six months. This can only refer to the applicant's current condition, and plainly not one which was only suffered temporarily at some point up to two years ago.

Nor do I believe that Mrs Sally Jones in fact thought that she was completing the form only by reference to that period, or that it was appropriate to do so. When asked about this she was very defensive and unconvincing. The information she provided clearly included statements as to the position in the last six months, which would be inconsistent with a snapshot from 12 months ago. Her attitude was that she "knew" that her sister "was entitled" to attendance allowance, on the basis that she knew of other people who were receiving the allowance but were less in need of assistance than Mrs Harris was.

In relation to the statements that Mrs Harris suffered from glaucoma, Sally Jones could only say that "she said she had it". It was the evidence of other family members that Mrs Harris did indeed always tell people that she suffered from glaucoma and that she thought that was the case because other relatives of hers had had glaucoma and it was hereditary, but in fact they all knew that Mrs Harris never had the condition herself. Extraordinarily, Dr Parry Jones gave the same response when asked why she had said that Mrs Harris suffered from glaucoma, i.e. that Mrs Harris herself said so. It was put to her that she as a doctor must have considered that her patient suffered from glaucoma since she had prescribed eyedrops for it, to which she answered "did I?" Shown the medical notes for the relevant date which referred to "Surgery consultation Jones, H (Dr)" and "Medication review… Reviewing Clinician: Mrs Jackie Jones" Dr Parry Jones said that the presence of her name did not mean that she had in fact had a consultation on that day or issued a prescription. She said that there was no evidence from the records that such medication had ever been issued. She herself had never treated Mrs Harris for glaucoma.

Both Dr Parry Jones and Mrs Jackie Jones were adamant that since Jackie Jones was not appropriately qualified it would have been inappropriate for her to issue prescriptions or be responsible for a clinical review. To the extent that the records indicated that she had adopted either role, this was said to be due to difficulties of entering the correct information in the computer system.

The conclusion I reach in relation to this part of the evidence is, I regret to say, that both Mrs Sally Jones and Dr Parry Jones were prepared to state on the attendance allowance form that Mrs Harris was suffering from glaucoma when they knew that was not the case. Dr Parry Jones, in particular, had not diagnosed or treated Mrs Harris for glaucoma and the fact that Mrs Harris herself maintained that she had glaucoma was not a sufficient reason for a GP to state that that was the case. Further, and extraordinarily, someone at Dr Parry Jones's practice was prepared to create a false record, apparently for the purpose of supporting information on the attendance allowance form, showing that Mrs Harris was prescribed eyedrops for glaucoma when she had not been. This may conceivably have been Mrs Jackie Jones (no such suggestion was put to her) but I see no reason why she would have done so, or at least done so alone, when it was Dr Parry Jones who was completing the attendance allowance form that the record was intended to aid. I conclude therefore that it is most likely that Dr Parry Jones was responsible, or at least partly responsible, for the creation of this record. It is not I think at all likely that it can have been done independently and in an extraordinary coincidence by some other uninvolved member of the practice.

As for the statements that Mrs Harris suffered from "dementia", Dr Parry Jones said "I wouldn't have said it was true at that time. I used it as an umbrella term for her problems after she had been discharged from hospital." In her witness statement of 13 August 2015 Dr Parry Jones said that the term dementia "was not a very precise one" that she had used to mean only that Mrs Harris had "a moment of difficulty" and that "she did not have any problems with her mind at that stage [ie when the form was completed]". She agreed in cross examination that the description of symptoms and difficulties set out in the part of the form completed by her mother presented a coherent and convincing picture of somebody suffering from dementia, but said that she herself had not used the term for the purpose of confirming such a picture. It is clear from Sally Jones' evidence that she had completed her part of the form before sending it to Dr Parry Jones, so that when Dr Parry Jones completed Part 10 she must have seen what was already contained in it, even if she had played no part in what her mother had written. She did not herself describe the effect of the conditions she stated her patient was suffering from, but her endorsement of the existence of those conditions plainly gives the impression of confirming what is said about them.

I do not, I am afraid, accept that Dr Parry Jones believed that dementia was a general umbrella term that it was appropriate to use to describe either a moment of difficulty or (as Sally Jones seemed to be suggesting in her evidence) the general and normal effect of old age, or that she would have considered it appropriate to describe Mrs Harris as having dementia at a time when she "did not have any problems with her mind". As Professor Howard said in his supplemental report:

“I am very surprised by these comments. All medical students are taught that dementia is a syndrome that is carefully and operationally defined. Dementia is not a term that is used to describe a moment of difficulty, but indicates an acquired, progressive impairment of multiple domains of cognitive function. Because the deficits seen in dementia are progressive, they cannot be reversed.”

Since Dr Parry Jones stated on the form that Mrs Harris was suffering dementia, I must conclude that that was in fact her medical assessment at the time. I do not consider it likely in the light of the evidence as a whole (and notwithstanding what I said above about her willingness to state that Mrs Harris had glaucoma) that Dr Parry Jones was lying entirely and certifying that Mrs Harris had dementia when, in her view, she did not. The question is how far the condition had progressed and to what extent it was at that stage impairing Mrs Harris's functioning.

If I conclude that, as she now maintains, Mrs Sally Jones was exaggerating the effects of that condition, Dr Parry Jones who was very familiar with her patient must have known that that was the case. Sally Jones accepted that Mrs Harris was not in fact so disabled that she was unable to complete and sign for herself. Dr Parry Jones would obviously have known that the statement to that effect was untrue and that it must have given a seriously misleading impression of the extent of Mrs Harris's difficulties. A question may well arise in those circumstances as to whether it was professionally appropriate for Dr Parry Jones to complete the form as she did and apparently endorse what her mother had said. That question however would be one for the medical regulatory authorities and not for me to determine in this case.

Dr Parry Jones said in her witness statement that she had mentioned to Mrs Harris at about the end of 2004 that she and her husband had recently revised their wills. Mrs Harris told her that she had never had a will and thought she ought to make one, and Dr Parry Jones had offered to make (and in fact had made) an appointment with her own solicitor for Mrs Harris to do so. Mrs Harris however had changed her mind and subsequently asked Dr Parry Jones herself to prepare the will, in about February 2005. Mrs Harris had told her what bequests she wished to make, which were that everything she owned was to go to her son Ioan and his wife except for a legacy of £10,000 to Sian. Dr Parry Jones said she had queried this with her aunt, "in view of my aunt's insistence over many years that her entire estate was to pass to her son and daughter-in-law." Mrs Harris had said that she wished to leave something to Sian in the hope that Sian would not thereafter challenge the will. Mrs Harris had implied that Sian had previously sought to contest the will of her sister-in-law Megan.

In relation to that suggestion, Sian's uncontested evidence was that Megan, who was a sister of her father, had died without children of her own and initially no will had been found. If there was an intestacy her estate would pass to her nephews and nieces, including Sian and Ioan. She had, with the full knowledge of Mrs Harris and Ioan, made an application for a grant of letters of administration to herself and Ioan. This did not proceed however because a will had subsequently been discovered, in which Megan left the bulk of her estate to another niece with small money legacies to Sian and Ioan. There had been no attempt to challenge that will, and her mother knew perfectly well what the circumstances were.

Ioan appeared in his evidence to suggest that he knew nothing about the circumstances except that his cousin who had inherited had ever since refused to talk to him on the basis that she believed that he and Sian had attempted to challenge the will. Whether or not the cousin believes that this is the case, or perhaps simply resents what she sees as an attempt to obtain a share of the estate on the basis that there was no will when in fact there was one, I cannot determine. What is apparent however from a letter (240) that Sian produced arranging to meet her brother for the purposes of attending the probate office to make the application for letters of administration is that he knew about that application and must have known that it was made on the assumption there was no will and was not an attempt to challenge a will known to exist. There is no reason why Mrs Harris would have thought anything different.

Dr Parry Jones said that she had made arrangements for her mother Sally to collect Mrs Harris and bring her to her house to execute the will. She had warned her brother Walwyn and his wife Jackie that she would ask them to be witnesses, and she telephoned on the day to ask them to come over for that purpose. Dr Parry Jones typed up the will herself and, when her aunt arrived, gave it to her to read. Mrs Harris told her she was satisfied with it and when Walwyn and Jackie arrived she took them into the study where Mrs Harris was with the will and left them alone while it was executed. She returned after they had done so and in their presence wrote the date on the will, which she then kept at her house.

Dr Parry Jones said she had not read over the will herself to Mrs Harris, but was perfectly satisfied that she was able to read it. She was an avid reader, and although she had reading glasses these were only "off-the-shelf" glasses and needed only for small print. She did not use a magnifying glass to read.

Ioan said in cross-examination that he was not aware beforehand that his mother was intending to make a will or of the arrangements that Dr Parry Jones had made. His mother had told him, several times some years previously, that she felt she ought to make a will. He found out that a will had been made a few days afterwards, when his mother told him about it. His wife Kathy also said that she was not aware beforehand of the arrangements or intention to make a will. She had found out about it a week or two afterwards, when Ioan had told her. Neither of them, therefore, was able to give any evidence about the circumstances in which it came to be made.

Mrs Sally Jones said that she had been asked by Dr Parry Jones to collect Mrs Harris from her house and take her to Dr Parry Jones's house. She had been told by her daughter that the purpose of the visit was for Mrs Harris to make a will. When she arrived, Mrs Harris was expecting her and had walked to the end of her drive to meet her. Mrs Harris did not however mention the will herself and Mrs Jones had not asked about it. Mrs Harris was a private person and Mrs Jones did not think this was the sort of thing she would have spoken about. On arrival at Dr Parry Jones's house, Mrs Harris had gone in but Mrs Jones did not. She left, she thought probably to go shopping, and had not seen her sister again that day. Nor had she discussed the will with her sister at any time afterwards. She also, therefore, could say nothing about the circumstances of execution.

Mr Walwyn Parry Jones said that Mrs Harris herself had asked him to witness her will, when he had been at the farmhouse with Ioan a week or two beforehand. Mrs Harris had made them lunch and asked him then whether he and Jackie would witness her signature on a will, told him that it would be at Dr Parry Jones's house, and that he would be told later when to come. He thought Dr Parry Jones may have mentioned it as well, but was not sure. I note in passing that if this was the case, it would be likely that Ioan would have been part of or overheard the conversation, although he said he was not aware of the will until after it had been signed.

He thought he had been given the specific date and time by Dr Parry Jones, but could not be sure. He had gone to her house, and recalled that Dr Parry Jones, his wife and Mrs Harris had been there. He could not recall anyone else. He thought Mrs Harris had been in the study when they arrived, and he had gone in to the study with Jackie. He remembered Mrs Harris sitting at a desk and that he and Jackie had been standing behind her. Mrs Harris said "I'm going to sign here, you need to sign there and there". They had all been signed the will. Mrs Harris had signed first, but he was not sure of the order in which he and his wife signed. He was sure that all three of them were in the room at the same time, but was not sure whether Dr Parry Jones had remained. He knew that his mother was going to take Mrs Harris to the house, having discussed the arrangements among the family since he had been asked to witness the will. He described Mrs Harris's mental health at the time as "tiptop" and said that he had seen her reading many times. She did use glasses, but it never seen her use a magnifying glass.

Mrs Jackie Jones also said that Mrs Harris had asked her directly to witness her will, at some time before the date on which it was actually signed. She said she had told her husband and he said that Mrs Harris had already asked him to do so as well. She thought this might have been about a month beforehand, but could not be sure. On the day of execution, she said she had a call from Dr Parry Jones and asked her to go to the house, in which she said "Doris is coming today and I want you to come up and sign." She could not recall whether she had gone with her husband to the house or whether he had arrived separately. She had gone into the study, Mrs Harris was there but she could not recall whether Dr Parry Jones also was. Her husband was there while they were signing. Mrs Harris had signed first, followed by herself and Walwyn. Afterwards, they went into the kitchen and had tea and a chat. Mrs Harris always wanted to have a chat, and was very interested in Mrs Jones's children, whom she looked after during the school holidays.

Following this evidence, Mr Rees confirmed that no challenge was made as to the formalities of execution. I accept the evidence of the witnesses to the will about the circumstances of the execution. There were some minor discrepancies between their accounts, but no more in my view than are to be expected in the accounts of honest witnesses doing their best to recall events now more than 10 years old. I also accept their evidence that Mrs Harris had told them beforehand that she was intending to execute a will and asked them to be witnesses to it, and that on that date Mrs Harris told them that she was going to sign and pointed out where they had to sign. I am satisfied from this that Mrs Harris knew and understood, both before and on the day, that she was signing a will. Further, I accept that when they went into the study Mrs Harris was already there with the will in front of her and was looking at it. She accordingly at least had the opportunity to read it.

As to whether Mrs Harris was able to read it, and whether she had in fact done so, the findings I make are as follows. I am not persuaded by Sian's evidence that Mrs Harris was unable to read without the aid of a large magnifying glass. I accept the evidence of the numerous witnesses for the defence, including family members but also other people such as holidaymakers, that Mrs Harris was a keen reader of newspapers and other material such as the Reader's Digest. Most of them said that although she had reading glasses, she did not always use them, and none of them said that they had ever seen her using a magnifying glass. The will was a short document, in relatively large and very clear font. Although there is no clear evidence whether she did or did not have her reading glasses with her on that day, I find on the balance of probabilities that she was able to read the text of the will whether she did or did not have her glasses. Further, given that Dr Parry Jones had provided her with the will once it was typed and left her in the study to read it, and that Mrs Harris had done so at least to the extent that she was able to point out to Walwyn Parry Jones and Jackie Jones where she was going to sign and where they should sign, I infer that she had in fact read it before they all signed.

Those findings are relevant to, but not conclusive in respect of, the questions as to capacity and knowledge and approval. Before expressing a final conclusion on those matters, I turn to other relevant parts of the evidence.

The pleaded case of the defendants, as I have said, is that it is accepted that Mrs Harris began to suffer from dementia from the time of her hospital admission in May 2004. Although in their evidence Ioan, Kathy and Dr Parry Jones sought to deny that this was the case, Mr Oughton on their behalf did not seek to resile from this pleading, and I have found above that Dr Parry Jones stated in the attendance allowance form in July 2005 that Mrs Harris was suffering from dementia because she believed that was the case. I proceed therefore on the basis that, as pleaded, Mrs Harris was suffering from dementia no later than May 2004, and the question is how far that was affecting her by the time she signed the will in February 2005.

The family witnesses called by the defendants all denied that Mrs Harris was suffering from any form of mental decline in 2005 other than the normal effects of ageing. They all denied any knowledge at any time of hallucinations or beliefs on Mrs Harris's part of the kind described by Sian and Mick, such as that aliens or Saddam Hussain had landed at the farm and the poisoning the water supply. Not only had Mrs Harris not said any such thing to them, they denied all the conversations that Sian and Mick said they had had, particularly with Ioan and Dr Parry Jones, about these matters and about concerns over Mrs Harris's mental health. According to them, Mrs Harris had remained essentially in full possession of her mental faculties until long after 2005. Some said that they noticed that she had begun to deteriorate much later than that, giving dates in 2008 or 2009 but not before.

The medical notes do not at any point contain any express diagnosis of dementia. The only relevant entries marked are two; firstly there is a note of the surgery consultation with Dr Parry Jones on 7 August, 2008 in relation to a leg injury that states "… but poor memory[;] family advised". A second note 2 weeks later on 21 August, 2008 notes "Home visit leg improving memory isq [in status quo]". In view of the generally poor quality of these records and the findings that I have made, I do not however treat this as any strong indication that there were no memory problems prior to August 2008. Dr Parry Jones said that she would not record a diagnosis of dementia unless it had been confirmed by an MRI scan. That was not an approach Professor Howard endorsed; he said that only a small minority of dementia patients ever had such a scan, though it had at one time been a policy of some local authorities to ration provision to patients who had been assessed in a memory clinic and had an MRI scan.

Several witnesses were called who were regular holidaymakers staying on the site. All of them had been going there for a number of years and were on friendly terms with Mrs Harris and Ioan. Some of them also knew Sian, though evidently less well since she did not live there. They accepted that they had discussed their impressions of Mrs Harris's mental condition amongst themselves after they knew about the court proceedings and that they might be asked to be witnesses, but I accept their evidence that these discussions only established that they all shared very much the same impression, and do not show that they agreed to concoct or exaggerate their evidence for the purposes of supporting the defendants' case. Mr Rees very properly explored the basis of these discussions with all the witnesses, but did not put any suggestion of fabrication or collusion to any of them.

One of the holidaymakers, Mrs Walker, produced shortly before the trial a copy of her handwritten "caravan diary" which she had kept over the years in which she had stayed in her caravan at the site. The entries include a number of references to meetings and discussions with Mrs Harris and Ioan. Some of the entries in this diary suggest an awareness of mental problems in Mrs Harris, but only at dates considerably after February 2005. There is for instance an entry for 27 June, 2004 that says "Had Doris down for cup of tea, then Phil [Mr. Walker] took her back and showed her his films." Another for 18 August, in this case made by Mrs Walker's daughter who was staying at the caravan, says "unpacked and popped up to see Doris. Left one and a half hours later when she momentarily paused for breath." There is no indication in any of these entries of any cognitive difficulties on Mrs Harris's part.

The first indication of any such problems is an entry for 17 June, 2006 which says "Saw Ioan, says his mother is very confused and was sleeping a lot." Another on 30 July, 2006 describes Mrs Harris as "quite lucid today" After that, there are isolated other references to seeing Mrs Harris, but no further suggestions of any difficulties on her part until an entry on 26 May 2008 that says "We had passed Doris walking up the drive 'going home to Beulah to see her mother', so called at Ioan and Kathy's on the way back to see if they had found her but all was okay." Asked about these entries, Mrs Walker said that the occasion in June 2006 was the first time that she had had any indication that there was anything wrong with Mrs Harris. Prior to that, she and her husband had always paid their camping fees to Mrs Harris, but from then on they paid Ioan instead.

Mr Walker confirmed that it was Ioan who had told them in June 2006 that his mother was "very confused". He was quite surprised, because he had not himself noticed any deterioration in her condition before that. He did say however that their experience from 2006 onwards was that Mrs Harris was slowly declining mentally, and becoming forgetful. It was in that context that it had been worthy of note in July that she was "quite lucid today".

As for the entry in May 2008, it indicates that Mrs Harris told them she was going home to Beulah (her former family home) to see her mother although they knew that Mrs Harris's mother had died long ago. This plainly indicated some serious confusion on Mrs Harris's part, and Mr and Mrs Walker were clearly concerned about it. They said they had watched to see that Mrs Harris did not wander out onto the road and checked later on to establish that Ioan and his wife had found her and that she was safe. Mrs Walker said "at that time her dementia was getting worse and they were looking after her." Mr Walker said that by that time, Mrs Harris was so confused that he did not believe she had recognised him.

Mr and Mrs Walker said there had never been any reference to them of belief in witches, aliens or Saddam Hussain. In 2005, they said, she was definitely perfectly rational and looking after herself. When she came to tea with them she was well dressed and not, they thought, in need of any help with her personal care. In 2006 her decline was slight, and "she was quite able to argue anything". Mr Walker said that Mrs Harris told him on a number of occasions that it was her intention to leave the farm to her son Ioan. He had in particular become very friendly with her and spent a lot of time discussing things with her in 1992 when he had business difficulties of his own, and she had told him this at that time and thereafter. He had not met Sian, but Mrs Harris had mentioned her, and he understood from what she had said that they did not get on. He had never seen Mrs Harris aggressive or short-tempered. He had seen her read newspapers, occasionally with spectacles but on other occasions without.

Mrs Walker said Mrs Harris had also told her "many times" she intended to leave the farm to Ioan. She (Mrs Walker) regarded it as normal in farming that the son would get the farm, and said "she (Mrs Harris) obviously felt he was entitled to it". She too had seen Mrs Harris read, though she said she used to pick up her spectacles to do so. She never saw her use a magnifying glass, and never found her aggressive or angry.

Mr and Mrs Luce, another pair of holidaymakers also gave evidence. Mrs Luce said they would see Mrs Harris most days, calling on her at the farm. Mrs Harris had discussed the future of the farm with them and told her on many occasions she intended it to go to Ioan. They had met Sian, and Mrs Harris told them (though they said not by way of criticism) that Sian did not visit often, and about money she had given Sian and Sian's habit of purchasing meat and fuel on Mrs Harris's accounts when she came. They had both heard Sian refer to her mother on two occasions as "the old Welsh witch". It was suggested to Mr Luce that Mrs Harris was confused and suffering from memory loss in 2005, to which he responded "certainly not". Mrs Luce said they visited in 2005 for about 3 weeks, in July or August, during which she saw Mrs Harris most days and had long conversations with her. By 2009 however when they saw her although she knew who they were she could not have any conversation.

Mr. Luce said that as far as they could tell there were no problems with Mrs Harris's mental health until about 2008. Until then they found her bright and alert and with good sight and hearing. They had wide ranging conversations most days about farming and many other subjects. She told them about the issues with the footpath, and he said she had dealt competently with that. She had never seemed angry or aggressive, or mentioned witches, space beings or the like, and always appeared clean and able to look after herself.

Mr Ian Ellis was a retired policeman who had stayed on the site for many years. He said he had experience of dealing with people with mental difficulties as part of his job. He had noticed that following her hospital admission in 2004 Mrs Harris was physically frail, but said that he could not detect any deterioration in her mental capacity until 2007. He had had long discussions with Mrs Harris in 2005 and 2006, in relation for instance to his young son, in whom she was very interested, and issues relating to the diversion of a coastal footpath which he knew she was dealing with. In 2005 he made a point of calling to see her and she knew him, his family, the regular holidaymakers and what was going on about the site and in the area in general. Mr. Ellis said that he thought she was "the same bright sharp lady she was before her illness [ie the hospital admission in 2004]". In 2006 they again discussed, at length, the diversion of the footpath. He was sure they had also discussed her grandson Jacob, whom she missed and said she did not see as often as Mr. Ellis's son, who was a similar age and over whom she made a great fuss. In 2007, however, he said "when we visited that summer the by now chronic illness that Mrs Harris suffered had a clear impact on her mental health." He had no personal knowledge of the "going home to Beulah" incident in 2008, but said that by that stage it would not have surprised him. Mrs Harris was not however that bad in 2007.

Mr Nigel Nicholas, a Rights of Way Officer for the county council gave evidence of the discussions he had had with Mrs Harris over the council's proposal to create a new coastal footpath. This required him to reach agreements for rights of way along the coast with the various landowners, including Mrs Harris. He had conducted these discussions with her between 2004 and July 2006, when a written right-of-way agreement was signed. His evidence was that he found her throughout quite capable of dealing with these discussions and with full knowledge and grasp of the issues involved. She had said that she would be prepared to agree to grant a right of way for the coastal path if the Council would arrange to divert the existing right of way leading through the farm down to the coast. He was in fact able to arrange this. He had found her formidable in pursuit of her own interests, as in his experience most landowners were. He had heard no mention of any hallucinations, did not find her to have become aggressive or quick-tempered and always found her clean and well presented. He did not find her at any time to be at all confused.

There was a certain amount of other evidence relied on as to capacity. Mr Aled Jones, who is Dr Parry Jones's brother and dealt with the VAT and tax affairs of the farm gave evidence. It had been said in other witness statements that Mrs Harris herself dealt with the VAT returns and relevant paperwork, but it was apparent from Mr Jones's evidence that Mrs Harris's involvement was effectively limited to putting all of the relevant invoices and other documents in a bag which he periodically collected and from which he prepared the required returns and accounts. There was some evidence that Mrs Harris had signed cheques and written notes on envelopes and letters received at dates after 2005, but none of this in my view was of any significant assistance.

Mr Oughton submitted that it had for a long time been Mrs Harris's settled intention to leave the farm to her son. It was said that the farm had originally been bought with a view to providing a career for Ioan, who had been prevented from following his intended career by an industrial accident. I was not entirely persuaded by this, since the farm appears to have been originally bought before the accident. It is however no doubt the case that for a very long period of time Ioan had been involved in running the farm with his mother, and it would have been an understandable ambition that she would have wished him to continue to be able to run it. Sian had never had any role in the running of the farm. It is easy to accept, as several of the witnesses said, that it would not be practicable to split the farm in two, nor for it to support borrowing any substantial sum in order to pay out half its value to Sian.

Mr and Mrs Walker and Mr and Mrs Luce both gave evidence that Mrs Harris had told them it was her intention to leave the farm to Ioan. So did Ioan, Kathy and their daughter Ffion, though of course they have a direct interest in the matter. So did Dr Parry Jones, though I place less weight on her evidence in light of the aspects in which I have found it unreliable.

Mr Jeremy Jones, Dr Parry Jones's husband, gave evidence that over the years he had had many discussions with Mrs Harris about business and financial matters. She had told him on numerous occasions that she intended to leave the farm to Ioan. They both realised that the farm was too small to be economic if split. Another motivation was that Mrs Harris had various disagreements with Sian over many years, particularly in relation to Sian's personal life and money that Mrs Harris and her husband had in the past lent to various boyfriends that Sian had had, for which they have not been repaid. Sian disputed the details of these allegations, but I am satisfied that whatever the actual facts of these incidents, they were a source of some resentment to Mrs Harris and that relations between Mrs Harris and Sian were not as good as they could have been as a result. Several other witnesses, including some of holidaymakers as noted above, gave evidence of remarks made to them to similar effect.

There was some documentary evidence to support the existence of this long-term intention. In 1989, Mrs Harris gave a plot of land on the farm to Ioan and Kathy in order that they could build a house on it. It is accepted that the permission they obtained to build a house is conditional upon it being occupied by working farmers, so this would be consistent with an intention and expectation that they would continue to be involved in running the farm. Not only did Ioan continue to work on the farm throughout, but Kathy became a partner in the farm partnership.

In 1993, Mrs Harris considered transferring the farmland into the joint names of herself and Ioan. She obtained consent from the mortgagee to this (212) but it ultimately did not proceed, apparently because the accountants acting at that time advised that it might result in a charge to capital gains tax. There is some doubt about whether this advice was correct, and no clear reason emerges from the correspondence as to why it did not proceed. Mrs Harris again raised the matter in 1997 (220) But it appears that by August 1997 it had been dropped for some reason (221). I do not think it can be inferred from this that the reason was that Mrs Harris had changed her mind and now intended to pass a share in the farm to Sian. Although Sian maintained that was the case, there is no other evidence to support that and it would be inconsistent with what Mrs Harris later told the holidaymakers and Mr Jeremy Jones.

In 1994 Mrs Harris obtained some consultancy advice from ADAS (223). That document states that her objective is to transfer the farm to her son (paragraph 2 (ii)). It also says at paragraph 4.2 that Mrs Harris "no longer wishes to take responsibility for the business and hopes to pass the farm to her son shortly." Since Mrs Harris in fact continued to be involved in running the farm until at least 2006, it may perhaps be the case that she contemplated transferring the farm into joint names when she was considering giving up her involvement in the business, but that she abandoned that idea and accordingly did not proceed with the transfer. There is no reason however to suppose that she abandoned her stated intention that the farm would eventually pass to Ioan.

Many of the witnesses were asked about the episodes Sian and Mick described in which Mrs Harris said to them she had won £1m in a Reader's Digest competition, when in truth she had only received marketing material saying she had been entered in a draw for such a prize. None of them knew of any such belief, though several knew that she was an avid reader of Reader's Digest and bought books from them in order to enter their competitions. I am not persuaded that Mrs Harris did have any such belief, but even if she did it shows at most only confusion about a matter irrelevant to her testamentary affairs and does not, in my view, assist greatly in deciding the material questions.

Professor Howard wrote two reports on behalf of the claimant. In his first, he considered the medical records, the various witness statements and in particular the attendance allowance form. He noted the absence of information in the medical records and the division of views between the witness statements. He concluded however, in summary, that the attendance allowance form was largely consistent with Sian's account, and given the detail contained in that form it was likely that any discrepancy between it and the medical records was accounted for by the inadequacy of the medical records. On the basis of Mrs Harris's condition as set out in that form he considered that by February 2005 Mrs Harris was probably suffering from a dementia that had reached the moderate to severe severity point. As a result, in his opinion it was unlikely that she had adequate testamentary capacity.

This opinion of course was necessarily formed without the benefit of being able to see or examine Mrs Harris during her life. It represents, as Professor Howard was careful to acknowledge, only a general view based on the observed correlation between the severity of Alzheimer's's symptoms and deterioration in cognitive function.

In his second report Professor Howard addressed the subsequent witness statements provided by Dr Parry Jones and Sally Jones. He said that given the way the attendance allowance form had been completed he had assumed that the information in it had been provided by Dr Parry Jones and therefore treated it as having the same status as the medical records. He acknowledged that it would be matter for the court to find whether the attendance allowance form was a reliable account of true state of Mrs Harris's mental condition and behaviour in 2005 and that "If the court decides that the account of events given in Dr Jones' and Mrs Jones' 2015 statements about the application is correct and that they did, as they claim, provide false and exaggerated information in the 2005 application then I consider that there would not be sufficient alternative documentation of Mrs Harris' dementia … in the medical records to support my initial view that Mrs Harris was unlikely to have had adequate testamentary capacity…".

Drawing all of this evidence together, the conclusions I reach are as follows. Firstly, I am satisfied as I said above that (as the defendants acknowledge in their pleading) Mrs Harris began to suffer from dementia from about May 2004. This would have been detectable by Dr Parry Jones as a qualified doctor, and I think it likely that she would have discussed it with members of the family as Sian described. I do not accept therefore that family members such as Ioan and Sally Jones were unaware of it.

Further, I think it likely that Mrs Harris did from time to time suffer from delusions of the type reported by Sian and Mick and occasionally got up and wandered in the night, and I accept their evidence that these matters were known about and discussed with Ioan and Kathy on the one hand and with Dr Parry Jones on the other. The alternative would be that these were entirely an invention on Sian's and Mick's part, in which case it would be remarkable that a similar invention would have been made by Sally Jones in completing the attendance allowance form. I think it much more likely that these incidents were real, but that their extent and effect were grossly exaggerated in the attendance allowance form.

The fact of these delusions however is not it seems to me of significance in relation to the question of Mrs Harris's testamentary capacity. Both counsel accept that under the test in Banks v Goodfellow, delusions are only relevant if they affect the testamentary dispositions made. In this case, however bizarre the delusions were, it is not suggested that they could have had any such effect.

Nor does wandering of itself necessarily indicate a loss of understanding such that Mrs Harris would have fallen below the threshold of capacity set out in Banks v Goodfellow. Taking account of the evidence a whole, and giving particular weight to the evidence of the non-family witnesses of their conversations and other dealings with Mrs Harris, I am satisfied that until at least the middle of 2006, and probably into 2007, she retained capacity to understand, and did understand, the matters essential to an effective testamentary disposition. There can be no real doubt for instance that she knew that she owned a farm, which was the principal asset in her estate. Further, she knew that she had a son and a daughter and that they both had children and was therefore able to appreciate that they had claims on her bounty, to use the language of the old cases which means no more than that they were persons she might normally be expected to consider when making a will.

I am satisfied that she was able to read print of the size in which the will was prepared with or without reading glasses, and given her general level of functioning and her determined character as testified to by many of the witnesses, I do not believe that she would have signed a document which, as I have found, she knew was a will, unless she had in fact read it. Further, I am satisfied that her level of understanding was such that if she had read it, she would have understood its provisions, which were short, simple and clear.

There is nothing in the terms of the will, in my view, to cause the court to be especially concerned about whether Mrs Harris in fact understood them. Mr Rees suggested that the terms should not be regarded as rational, because of the disparity in provision as between Sian and Ioan and because the money bequest to Sian effectively made little or no provision for the future of Sian's son Jacob. But the farm is not large and there is no challenge to the submission that it could not effectively have been split in two and could not have supported borrowings sufficient to enable chance to have been paid an amount equal to half its value. Nor is it rendered irrational by the fact that Kathy was to inherit jointly with Ioan, or might even be the sole inheritor if Ioan predeceased her. Kathy was a member of the farming partnership and had been involved in running the farm for many years. Some may have considered it inappropriate to put family by marriage in a position potentially better than that of an immediate blood relation, but it is not necessarily irrational to do so. There was a suggestion based on the estate papers that the executors had considered selling the farm, but there is no evidence at all that Mrs Harris contemplated that, and ample evidence from the documents and the independent witnesses that her intention was that Ioan would continue to farm it after her death, supporting the statements made by him, his wife and daughter to similar effect. Not everyone would make the distribution chosen, but it cannot be said to have been irrational.

It follows from these findings that Mrs Harris had both the necessary capacity to make a will, that she did read it and understood its terms and that she knew and approved of the contents of the will. It is not the function of the court to form any judgment about the appropriateness of the distribution she chose to make, but only to be satisfied that Mrs Harris was capable of making a will and that its contents do reflect her intentions in accordance with the tests I have set out above. However disappointing the result is to Sian, the will made by her mother was valid and her claim must be dismissed.

I will list a hearing at which this judgment will be handed down. There need be no attendance if the order resulting is agreed between the parties. If however there are matters arising, I will take them on that occasion is convenient to the parties and if they can be dealt with in not more than 30 minutes. In any other event, parties should supply a time estimate and dates of availability and I will list a later hearing.