“No will shall be valid unless (a) it is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction; and (b) it appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will; and (c) the signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; and (d) each witness either (i) attests and signs the will; or (ii) acknowledges his signature, in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness), but no other form of attestation shall be necessary.”
“The Court ought to have in all cases the strongest evidence before it believes that a will, with a perfect attestation clause, and signed by the testator, was not duly executed, otherwise the greatest uncertainty would prevail in the proving of wills.” 46). Then at [41]: “In general, if a witness has the capacity to understand, he should be taken to have done what the attestation clause and the signatures of the testator and the witness indicated, viz. that the testator has signed in their presence and they have signed in his presence. In the absence of the strongest evidence, the intention of the witness to attest is inferred from the presence of the testator’s signature on the will (particularly where, as in the present case, it is expressly stated that in witness of the will, the testator has signed), the attestation cause and, underneath that clause, the signature of the witness.” 47). “Strongest evidence” was also considered by Arden LJ in Channon where at [45] she said: “So the question of what constitutes the “strongest evidence” for the purposes of this case remains to be explored. As I see it, there is a sliding scale according to which evidence will constitute the strongest evidence in one case but not in another…[it]…will depend upon the totality of the relevant facts of that case, and the court’s evaluation of the probabilities. The court must look at all the circumstances of the case relevant to attestation. The more probable it is, from those circumstances, that the will was properly attested, the greater the burden on those seeking to displace the presumption as to due execution to which the execution of the will and the attestation clause give rise. Accordingly the higher will be the hurdle to be crossed to meet the requirement of showing the “strongest evidence”, and the stronger that evidence will need to be.” 48). She continued at [46]: “Likewise, if the evidence of due attestation is weak, then the burden of displacing the presumption as to due execution may be more easily discharged and the requirement to show the strongest evidence satisfied. Allegations that were not made, or were not pursued, and mere suspicion, have to be put on one side.” 49). In his closing submissions Mr Bennion-Pedley relied on the well-known paragraphs 15-22 in the judgment of Mr Justice Leggatt (as he then was) in Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd and Anr[2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) , and submits I should pay particular attention to unconscious bias and the effect of present belief on past memory, in view of the antipathy of Sharmila and Srimila to their sister. Further, Srimila with her long term friends Ms Ali and Ms Syed all have to answer questions of impropriety, so they cannot give evidence with any degree of impartiality. 50). Therefore Mr Bennion-Pedley submits it is especially important here to assess the evidence with a primary focus on contemporaneous evidence and known or provable facts. Mr Gun Cunninghame submits this is a binary issue in that either Ms Ali and Ms Syed are telling the truth or they are not; if they are, due execution is proved, the matter ends there and the expert evidence takes the matter no further forward. 51). As to civil cases being determined in accordance with the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, Mr Gun Cunninghame cited Treasury Solicitor v Doveton and Anr[2008] EWHC 2812 (Ch) where Mr Mark Herbert KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division reviewed judicial statements as to the principles regarding the standard of proof at [13] and the judgment of Richards LJ in R(N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal[2006] QB 468 : “Although there is a single civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, it is flexible in its application. In particular, the more serious the allegation or the more serious the consequences if the allegation is proved, the stronger must be the evidence before a court will find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. Thus the flexibility of the standard lies not in any adjustment to the degree of probability required for an allegation to be proved (such that a more serious allegation has to be proved to a higher degree of probability), but in the strength or quality of the evidence that will in practice be required for an allegation to be proved on the balance of probabilities.”
“…increasingly hostile towards him, that he had told her to get out of the house and they were no longer on speaking terms. He also told me that her husband, Nirmalan, was violent and had attempted to throw a chair at him. My father told me that he would not want either of them at his funeral if he died. I was still on speaking terms with the Claimant and tried my best to try and reconcile her relationship with our father.” 57). He then said he had set up the sibling WhatsApp group in July 2016 when it became clear that their father may not survive without a transplant. Oormila, he said, was not involved during their father’s ill health and “…made no efforts to assist him in any way.”
“I have tried and failed for several years to build bridges between my sisters and it’s been a struggle, it’s been really difficult for me.” 58). He was also certain and direct – for example when cross examined regarding the estate accounts and asked if he could see that refusing to provide them to Oormila caused distrust and suspicion, he readily accepted that. When it was put to him that this was not very helpful he said “I didn’t intend to be helpful”
“When we reached the house Uncle welcomed us warmly as Srimila was not there yet. He asked generally about our married lives and family. Uncle then asked us whether we could witness his Will as there were two of us. He specifically asked that we did not mention it to anyone so that he could tell his family at the right time. After Uncle signed his Will, both myself and Asma signed in the witness section. We did not mention this to Srimila when she reached home with her husband, Hari, and son, Jai.” 64). In cross examination Ms Syed said she ran her own digital marketing business, had known Srimila for 24 years, and was in regular contact with her and Ms Ali by text and WhatsApp, using the latter in 2016. She confirmed she had changed her mobile number and telephone a few times since 2016, that she had been asked for her text and WhatsApp messages from then but she did not have any. 65). Ms Syed said she and Ms Ali together saw Uncle sign the Will which they both then signed. This took place in the living room. She was unsure whether Mrs Selvarajah was at home at the time, but it was in the evening. Uncle appeared his usual self, and she had not seen him for a while. Asked about his appearance she said “I remember thinking he had lost a bit of weight. It can happen in old age.” 66). She could not recall what he was wearing but said the Will was on a dining table at the back of the living room. She did not read anything but just signed her name. She could not recall which of her or Ms Ali signed first. She confirmed it was her signature but she could not identify the manuscript date on the Will, nor whose pen she used. She was careful in her answers; as to the pen she said she must have used one given to her, but volunteered she could not recall if it was passed to her or she took it off the table. 67). When asked why she hadn’t told Srimila of the Will when he died, she said, in a very natural and open way, that “I did tell her after he died. A few days later or after the funeral. She said to me she’s already found the Will.”
“…expressed that he wanted to ensure my aunty, his wife, was financially secure as she had always remained a housewife throughout their marriage. He told me he wants to leave everything to his wife.” 70). The second was: “I visited my uncle in hospital at the end of August in intensive care at King George Hospital with my husband Ragu. I remember asking him whether he made the will and he confirmed he had.” 71). In cross examination she confirmed that she was unaware of her uncle owning Number 39 and that she did not discuss financial matters with him. She was however certain that he told her he was going to leave everything to his wife. Mr Bennion-Pedley suggested she was mistaken in that the conversation was to the effect that the Deceased would leave his wife financially secure, not that he would make a will. Mrs Ragu said her uncle told her he was going to make a will leaving everything to his wife. Mr Bennion-Pedley observed that neither Srimila nor Srikumaran were aware of that and asked her to explain why he had kept that a secret and told her and not his children. She could not explain why, which is understandable, but her evidence in this respect was not wholly convincing. 72). Mr Bennion-Pedley then turned to the hospital visit. Here her evidence was far more detailed. She explained that this was not her first visit but on 29th August she with her husband went to see her uncle. There is no dispute that they did visit then. Mrs Ragu said she was told by Srimila or a nurse not to spend too much time with him. His eyes were shut when they were shown in. When he did open them, he was very happy to see them both, especially as, she said, he liked her husband very much and had not seen him for years. 73). Speaking in Tamil, he asked her to call Srimila in. She asked her husband to do so and when he left asked the Deceased if he had written a will to which he said yes. Mr Bennion-Pedley put to her that did not happen which she said it did – he took off his mask to do so. 74). I found Mrs Ragu, whilst quite clear at times in her evidence, to occasionally be uncertain, especially when she was being questioned as to why the Deceased would tell her about his intent to make a will and not his children as I mention above. Broadly, I accept what she said, but with reservations. MS SRIMILA SRIHARI 75). Srimila in her statement described how her father was a great man who spent his last decade giving back to the local Hindu/Tamil community, as shown by the attendance of over 1,500 people at his funeral. After marriage in 2011 she said she moved out of Number 36 and began travelling back and forth to India, and that Oormila after she married in 2010 lived in India with her husband until about 2014, when she moved back to live with Sharmila. 76). Then her father told her of his concerns as to Oormila’s behaviour towards him, and how he felt Sharmila’s husband, Muralitharan, was bullying her. He also said to her that he felt Oormila, Muralitharan and Nirmalan orchestrated their actions to make matters difficult in the running of Shay Services, and that despite his illness Oormila did not try to assist or comfort him. These family disputes worsened when at the funeral Oormila was adamant that Nirmalan should carry her father’s coffin despite the family’s wishes. 77). As to the Will Srimila said this: “While dealing with my father’s paperwork after his death, I found my father’s Will. I was surprised my father had not told the family he had made a Will. In hindsight, I believe my father did not disclose to anyone that he had made a Will leaving everything to our mother as he must have expected some pressure from the Claimant, Nirmalan and Muralitharan. He would not have wished for further family issues to arise while he was unwell.” 78). At the outset of cross examination she was asked if she had drafted the commission agreement regarding Shay Services. Her reply was certain and to the point: “No. My father never referred any legal matter to me. He sees me as a little child.”
“In 2016, Srimila returned to London and Allya and I wanted to visit her. When we got to Srimila’s parents’ home, which is where she was residing, Srimila was not there yet so we were having a general conversation with her dad. During this time, uncle asked us whether we could witness his Will. We saw him sign the Will and signed after him. Uncle was persistent that we did not mention it to anyone as he wanted to tell them himself. We met Srimila and her family when she arrived and then left.” 90). In her oral evidence she confirmed Munich Re had deleted her emails and diary upon her move to her new role and location. Asked about the Deceased’s illness, she said she knew he was ill but not how severe it was – maybe a liver transplant or something. She said that she went to Number 36 the day after his death but could not attend the funeral. 91). Mr Bennion-Pedley then asked what she remembered of events on8th August 2016 . Ms Ali said that they arranged to meet at No 36, but Srimila was not there. They were speaking to uncle and waiting around. He asked if they were free and could help him sign his will. She had a quick glance and said she was happy to do it. They signed the Will and waited a while for Srimila and her family to return, and then spent some time with them. She definitively said Mrs Selvarajah was not present. 92). She continued by saying that the conversation as to the Will started in the hall and then they moved into the living room. She went straight there from work where she finished at about 5.00pm. She took the train home which was one hour, freshened up and then went to Number 36 so she thought she would have arrived about 7.00pm. The Deceased appeared normal to her, nothing out of the ordinary. When asked where the Will came from she said “…uncle just passed it to us…”, and she could not recall where he got it from. 93). Mr Bennion-Pedley said by glancing at it what was she checking the Will for? She replied “I’m quite a cautious person. I want to see what I’m signing and it said something like transfer all to my spouse then I signed it.”
“…is inconclusive meaning that it is not possible to determine whether or not the signature was written by him”
“…there is moderate evidence to show that the questioned signature was written by…[the Deceased]…However, his opinion is based on the premiss that all the known signatures that he has examined are in fact the genuine signatures of …[the Deceased]…written at the date as shown. If item [PC12] and possibly any other signature is not a genuine signature of …[the Deceased]…written on the date shown, Mr Craddock’s opinion of moderate evidence would be unsustainable and therefore his opinion as to whether…[the Deceased]…was responsible for signing his Will dated08 August 2016 would be inconclusive”
“…has been instructed that the Claimant challenges the authenticity of any documents where there is no clear handwriting of …[the Deceased]…other than a signature and has identified these items as [PC3-PC12] and [PC18]...one of the most significant limitations to the examination is lack of any contemporaneous signatures particularly given the allegation above, which incorporates item [PC12]. This is despite the large number of known signatures submitted for examination; none of them were writen after the date of the questioned Will. Mrs Briggs is of the opinion that the documents available are not representative of the writing ability of…[the Deceased]…at the time the Will was signed.” 101). Accordingly she does not consider a reliable opinion is possible so she maintains that the evidence is “inconclusive”. 102). Mr Craddock: “…agrees with the limitations with regard to the known signatures as documented by Mrs Briggs…However, if item [PC12]…is accepted by the court to be genuine and written on the date shown, it is [his] opinion that there is sufficient evidence to support the proposition that it is more likely than not that the questioned signature of…[the Deceased]…on the Will is genuine. If item [PC12] in his report cannot be relied upon his opinion would be inconclusive.” 103). I refer to item 12 in my summary of the evidence of Ms Sharmila Muralitharan at [83-87] above. I accept her evidence that she had not seen this letter before and that she had not signed it as she had never signed documents for her father nor used an electronic image to do so. On the balance of probabilities in the absence of any sustainable evidence or challenge the signature on item 12 can be presumed genuine. 104). Therefore, in summary, Mrs Briggs concludes the evidence is inconclusive, albeit I note the limitations imposed by Oormila, and Mr Craddock concludes there is moderate evidence it is genuine. Old Age Psychiatry 105). Professor Burns and Dr Prabhakaran made two joint statements; unfortunately they initially were not provided with the same medical records. By the time of their second report dated4th May 2022 they were satisfied that broadly they had the same information before them. They agreed they should concentrate on the Deceased’s testamentary capacity on the day he executed his Will on8th August 2016 . They further agreed: “While there is a past history of heart disease, liver cirrhosis and high blood pressure, there is nothing to suggest a dementia, cognitive impairment or a mental health condition that could have affected Mr Selvarajah Sellathurai’s testamentary capacity; There is no evidence of the presence of an insane delusion…The Court will have to rely on the non-medical evidence to come to a conclusion.” 106). That puts the matter of testamentary capacity as far as medical evidence is concerned beyond doubt, although Mr Bennion-Pedley referred to it in his skeleton argument as inconclusive, to which I return below. CLOSING SUBMISSIONS 107). The facts and circumstances here are somewhat unusual so I therefore will set out the helpful closing submissions by both counsel in some detail, both of whom provided me with their speaking notes. Mr Gun Cunninghame’s case is simple; due execution is established by the evidence of Ms Syed and Ms Ali. If I accept their evidence, that is the end of the matter and the expert evidence is irrelevant. The signature of the Deceased does not have to match as if he signed it he signed it, whether it was his usual signature or not. 108). He also emphasised that the Particulars of Claim were drafted in general and unspecific terms and that none of what Mr Bennion-Pedley submitted appeared in that pleading; this is a serious allegation of fraud and forgery, and even more seriously that people lied to the court. However the evidence tendered by Oormila was mere inference and suspicion. As he said in his skeleton argument, it was surprising that Oormila could pursue a case of fraud without any evidence of fraud. 109). Next, the form of the Will is sufficient; it has a proper attestation clause in clear terms. As to Gestmin, the simple point remains; is the evidence of the attesting witnesses reliable and truthful? He submits the minor differences in recollections are the hall marks of honest evidence, which in general terms I accept. This is a binary issue; either they are telling the truth or they are not as there is no middle ground in misremembering. 110). Further, Mr Gun Cunninghame submitted that the joint handwriting opinion is at its highest for Oormila inconclusive. As to item 12, there was no reason nor motivation for anyone other than the Deceased to have signed it, and Oormila only challenges this and like signatures where the document concerned is typed save for the signature. I do not consider that is a reason in itself to challenge the signature. It seems in the absence of handwritten letters experts must use single signatures for comparison purposes. 111). During closing submissions I asked Mr Bennion-Pedley to address the joint medical report and explain why it was inconclusive in view of the clear conclusion of both experts that the Deceased had testamentary capacity. He replied that they had missed in their review a report of a referral to NHS 111 by an unspecified daughter on12th August 2016 which stated “New confusion was the main reason for the assessment…the duration of the problem was more than 2 weeks.” 112). I am unaware as to whether this note was before the experts. In any event, this records what the daughter told the call handler. It is not an assessment by a doctor following examination. I also consider there was ample time to have the experts reconsider this evidence, as their joint report was dated22nd May 2022 . In the event, Mr Bennion-Pedley said this was not a live issue. 113). He emphasised the fallibility of human memory and the need to assess witness evidence alongside contemporaneous documentary evidence and evidence upon which undoubted or provable reliance can be based. Or, as I think it can be put, the primacy of documentary evidence compared to the fallibility of memory. Mr Bennion-Pedley also referred to the need to pay particular attention to unconscious bias and the effect of present belief on past memory. 114). Here, he submits that all the key witnesses must answer allegations of irregular conduct, and in the context of, for certain of them, hatred of Oormila. I think he is underplaying the seriousness of their position; the key witnesses (Srimila, a solicitor, Ms Syed and Ms Ali) and possibly others, if he is correct, have committed perjury. The context Mr Bennion-Pedley contends for is that it appears Srimila and her friends did not act for personal gain but out of a concern that without a will the family would lose 50% of the estate in tax as appears in Srimila’s WhatsApp message at [23] above. She set out a plan to prepare a will and after his death the Will appeared in exactly the terms she proposed. 115). It is Mr Bennion-Pedley’s submission having started with that view that a will was necessary – and her siblings supported her in that – the Will was prepared by her to ease administration rather than defraud, but everything has blown up beyond what she anticipated, and so family and friends have been brought in to maintain the story of the Will. In those circumstances, there can be no question of impartiality as far as the Defendants’ witnesses are concerned. Further, the Will was an administrative document rather than a true testamentary instrument. 116). On that basis, he submits the crucial WhatsApp message from Srimila and the known and provable facts point inexorably to Srimila having done exactly what she said she would do. He submits none of those matters flow from Oormila’s evidence. He is right not to rely on her evidence as, as I have set out above, I found I could place little or no weight on it, but that it did not go to the Issues I am to determine. 117). However, Mr Bennion-Pedley submits that Oormila’s case is based on inference as appears in her Reply at [6]. I take the sub paragraphs in turn, paraphrasing them in italics and setting out my findings where possible: i) The Deceased had limited written English. There was no evidence before me as to his lack of ability to understand and read English, and certainly not the unsubstantiated allegation that he could not have understood the Will – see [54] above. ii) The Deceased turned to Srimila, a solicitor, for assistance with legal and administrative matters. This was not proven, as Srimila made it plain she felt she was always treated as a child in such matters – and I accept that evidence. Further, as I set out below, he did contact a solicitor who had been known to hm for some time. iii) On 28th August Srimila suggested she should prepare a will…[he] was in hospital in a high dependency unit, sedated and upon ventilation…encephalopathy ..caused profound confusion. These are all established matters of fact and not inferences. iv) After his death Srimila produced the Will in the terms she had proposed and purportedly witnessed by two of her close friends. This is the Defendants’ case. v) Neither of the witnesses responded to Oormila’s solicitors’requests for an account of the execution. Both had left their homes where those letters were sent years before, and postal forwarding had not been set up by Ms Syed, so this point is of no substance. vi) Oormila’s handwriting expert concluded that it was “highly likely” the signature on the Will was not genuine. This is not her conclusion in the joint report – see [98] above. vii) Oormila therefore infers Srimila created the Will after 28th August, it was not executed by the Deceased on 8th August or at all and in any event was not properly witnessed. I deal with these allegations in my findings of fact below. viii) The deceased lacked capacity…Conceded in closing submissions. 118). Mr Bennion-Pedley submits against that is the Defendants’ counterfactual “entirely by coincidence dad had already done it” which in his submission is wholly flawed, due to five fundamental problems. Mr Bennion-Pedley’s speaking note was detailed but succinct as to these issues and I therefore set it out verbatim: (1) There is not a single contemporaneous document to evidence any change of plan The reference to ‘couple will’ [3/776] is Not a change of plan – it still requires Mr Sellathurai to make a will in Mrs Sellathurai’s favour. Alternatively there is nothing to explain why that did not proceed either. : • Thousands of messages between the family • D2 had identified a very serious problem (the 50% loss to the estate) • D2 had a clear solution to that problem and her siblings consent • There is no explanation as to why she did not put that plan in place as she contends • Not a single message that makes any reference to the plan being abandoned (2) There is no documentary evidence to show that a meeting in fact took place on8 August 2016 • Very unusual in this day and age and D2 refuses to provide copies of the group whatsapp she shares with Ms Ali and Ms Syed (and two others) (3) No evidence at all to show where the will came from (if not from D2 - the obvious candidate) • Extraordinary, not least because we were told on instruction that Srimila has access to her father’s email (4) The will itself • Has the look of something from the internet (Not inconsistent with D2 having prepared it – she said in evidence that she had in mind a WHSmith form and her knowledge of English wills and probate law was patchy at best) • More importantly, there are four sets of handwriting on the will [1/10] (i) Mr Sellathurai (or the person purporting to be him) (ii) Ms Ali (iii) Ms Syed - AND (iv) Someone else – who wrote in the date above the witnesses’ signatures. NOTE – careful to ask both witnesses if that writing was their’s and both said no (although Ms Ali said that she thought it might be Ms Syed’s writing) The existence of a fourth person is wholly inconsistent with the witnesses’ evidence and consistent of course with the will having been prepared / produced by someone other than Mr Sellathurai. (5) Non-disclosure of the existence of the will to D2 On this there are two time periods: Before Death – when it would not be unreasonable or unusual for the witnesses to comply with Mr Sellathurai’s wishes After death – when it would be extraordinary if they did not then speak up • They had been told that Mr Sellathurai wanted to tell his family about the will at the right time – i.e. that the family did not and would not know about it unless and until they were told; • Mr Sellathurai died within a matter of weeks during which he spent significant periods in hospital, sedated and ventilated • If under a duty to remain silent prior to death then a duty to speak up after • Both witnesses saw D2 (and other family members) prior to the funeral and Ms Syed attended 119). Mr Bennion-Pedley submitted as to (5) and the non-disclosure of the Will to Srimila that the written evidence before trial was that Srikumaran was told of it after the funeral but Srimila put it chronologically being discovered after the funeral, and neither witness says they told Srimila of it before the funeral. However, at trial, Srimila said she found it before the funeral and Ms Syed said she did tell Srimila of the Will but was uncertain as to whether this was before or after the funeral. That, he submits, means the only explanations were either that the Will was not in place so there was nothing to tell or disclose to Srimila or that they did not need to tell her as she orchestrated it as she said she would. 120). Also, neither of these long standing friends of Srimila appear to have noticed the marked physical deterioration of the Deceased whereas the contemporaneous documentary evidence showed he had “wasted away”, “looked really bad” and as Srikumaran put it, was “skin and bones” or as Sharmila said, he had “given up”. 121). Mr Bennion-Pedley was also very critical of Ms Ali saying she checked the terms of the Will before signing which he said was highly unusual as it is a private document. To do so would be impertinent, especially with the, as he put it, generational and gender imbalance. That checking, he continued, was more likely if she was asked to witness it after the event. 122). I address these and other substantial points by Mr Bennion-Pedley below, but before I do so I will set out which of the myriad of allegations I consider have been disposed of and which are current and unusual or suspicious so need consideration in my findings of fact. 123). The allegations I consider disposed of as being without substance are: i. That one of either Ms Ali or Ms Syed was not in the UK at the time the Will was executed. ii. That the Deceased would not have been unable to understand the language of the Will and would have needed an interpreter. iii. That the Deceased lacked testamentary capacity. iv. That the estate of the Deceased included properties all of which were free of mortgage and there were no debts owed to third parties, and the estate was worth many times more than what Oormila has now evidently accepted it is worth. v. Further, that the estate included properties in Sri Lanka, gold jewellery, other leasehold properties in the UK, bank accounts in Sri Lanka and that the Temple was itself a business to be included in the assets. vi. That Ms Syed and/or Ms Ali deliberately ignored correspondence from Oormila’s solicitors asking them about the Will. 124). The matters which remain arguably unusual or suspicious are: i. The provenance of the Will. I do not know what steps, if any, were undertaken to preserve and search personal computers, laptops and other electronic devices but it must exist somewhere on someone’s device; or appear to have been deleted. Mr Bennion-Pedley places substantial weight on the lack of a digital footprint around the arrangements Srimila, Ms Syed and Ms Ali made to meet on the 8th August but the Will was I thought more deserving of digital inquiry. ii. The manuscript writing on the Will in that one of the dates appears as Mr Bennion-Pedley submits to have been written by a fourth person. Twice the date has been written in. The first (in order on the page, immediately above where the Deceased signed) says “…EIGHTH…AUGUST 2016…”
“I DID NOT MAKE A will for Mr Sellathurai. But he has known to me and the firm since we established in 1997. He has called me regarding preparation of WILL but has not attended my office to give any instructions to prepare the same” (sic) 126). The writer said he could not recall the date of this telephone call. In my judgment this establishes that the Deceased at one point intended to make a will. There is no indication in the evidence nor reason for him not to maintain that intention until he did so. I appreciate that the writer did not give evidence at trial but this is independent documentary evidence of that intent, and the inclusion of it in the trial bundle means it is admissible as evidence of the contents – seeCPR Part 32 PD27.2. Further, no objection has been taken by Oormila, which would be difficult as it is a document emanating from her. 127). The document referred to above as item 12 which was considered by Mrs Briggs and Mr Craddock in their reports is a short “To whom it may concern” reference on the headed notepaper of the Temple regarding “Master Lukshan Shavaswaran”