An interesting case in the press that includes a dispute about a chattel which appears to have some value.

 The key points in this case involve capacity and it will be interesting to see the final result. Mr Hayward took advice from a solicitor, so their evidence is going to be key, as will the accuracy of their file notes. I’m sure that in this case Iain’s lawyers will produce medical evidence, possibly from an old-age psychiatrist. However, recent cases suggest that the courts are preferring the evidence of solicitors, over medical evidence produced after death. The mentioning of Mr Hayward’s mind being “poisoned” also suggests that the claim is being advanced on an alternate basis of undue influence – i.e. that Mr Hayward was coerced into making his will. Undue influence cases are also notoriously difficult to prove which adds another layer of complexity to this claim. The solicitor’s evidence will again be key on this point!