“Sadly, Mum was not informed that Vicky had given birth. When Mum did go to visit Vicky and her new granddaughter, Vicky just shouted at Mum.”
“Tearful — daughter has new baby + is denied access. Feels guilty as not enjoying life.”
“Went to see V 11am. Shouted at me from the time she opened the door. Why didn't I ring. All my fault. Walked away absolutely stunned. Terrible day we should have rang her and gone to see her the day she came out of hospital. Even tho’ we weren’t informed.”
“Once we got passed this misunderstanding Vicky would regularly visit her Mum and Dad.”
“Almost a year since the current crisis with Vicky and Ian. Cleverly manipulated, there isn’t going to be any change, the baby is beautiful and I have never held her. How cruel of Vicky and him, how cruel to the boys.”
“Her problem remains much the same with regard to her relationship with one of her daughters and the effects of this on the extended family.”
“The situation was as before, with much painful rumination about not being able to see her grandchildren.” • In a diary entry on13 January 2003 , Mary wrote: “Very unhappy day. Can’t take in the hatred Vicky must feel for me. How can anyone dislike a mother as much.” • A GP note on14 January 2003 records: “Depressed, estranged from daughter and granddaughter, generally very negative about everything and everyone today.” • A GP note on13 February 2004 records: “H/O [History of] depression … estranged from daughter.” • In a diary entry on15 January 2005 —a fortnight after she had undergone a mastectomy—Mary wrote: “Rose [Mary’s sister] told me not to bother myself with Vicky anymore. I told Carolyne when she rang. I also asked Car if she was still seeing Vicky and she said it was more on V side than hers and that V never mentions me at all. V does know what she is doing and poor Carolyne can’t see it. V is a very happy satisfied girl having hurt me yet again. And why my darling Carolyne can’t see it is beyond me.” • In a diary entry on31 January 2005 Mary wrote: “Lazy day, feeling very down. Thought a lot of the children and Vicky, so very sad. Seeing the children would help me so much now. She’s not a good mother depriving her children of our love. Joan came, I broke my heart to her.”
“[I]t was as tho’ I had been hit by a hammer, so hurtful what she has told her children.”
“For me, this was the final straw. I could not continue my relationship with Vicky when she refused to acknowledge or help Mum and would not stop bringing up the past. She was simply fixated on the past and could not move forward. Thereafter, our relationship broke down again and I did not speak to Vicky.”
“I would be grateful if you could see this 73 year old lady with atrial fibrillation. She has been complaining over the last year or so with memory deficit, mainly affecting her short term memory. In consultation she got the wrong month and the date wrong but got the right year. She was correct on World War I & II. She was also able to recall three words a couple of minutes later but forgot them 4 minutes later. During her serial 7s she made one mistake but realised she had made a mistake at the end of the test. I am going to arrange for her to have the usual blood tests but would be grateful if you could see her with regards any potential memory deficit.”
“Memory assessment MMSE [Mini Mental State Examination] 26/30, lost 4 on calculation. No objective evidence of memory loss.”
“Took V nearly ten years to come and see Ron. Made sure she brought lots of photos - Italy skiing and America. Lovely to see the children, she left the photos to make sure I saw them. They are lovely children. I shall never forgive her for her cruelty to me. She didn’t say goodbye when she left making it quite clear she didn’t come to see me. I have made Ron promise she is not to come anywhere near me when anything happens to me.”
“Carolyne is very concerned regarding the health of each of us.”
“Mrs Wadge has a daughter Victoria Jones that she wishes not to be included in the Will.”
“I revoke all earlier Wills and testamentary dispositions.”
“I DECLARE that I have NOT made any provision in my Will for my daughter Victoria Jones and I do not wish for her to benefit in anyway (sic) from my estate.”
“You have within your Will made a gift of real property. If this asset is jointly owned by you with your husband RONALD WADGE or with somebody else, it is very important to establish if you do so as joint tenants or as tenants in common. If the asset is held by you as joint tenants this bequest will not be effective as this asset will pass to the surviving joint owner or owners irrespective of what your Will says. If you are in doubt or want help please contact Irwin Mitchell.”
“Pam O’Brien [community psychiatric nurse]: Forgetful, packing bags and wanting to walk home. She will do MSU [mid-stream urine specimen] later this week.”
“Suspected UTI [urinary tract infection]. Dort [presumably, Daughter] seeks abs [antibiotics]”. • A GP note for12 June 2009 reads: “Memory loss symptom. d/w [Discussed with] Pam O’Brien, probs with memory, became more confused – on w/e away? d/t [Due to] uti. Unclear whether this was an acute situation (? uti) or ongoing (? dementia) process – check urine again, extend range of blood tests next week and review – MMSE”. • A Mini Mental Health Examination was carried out on18 June 2009 . Mary scored 26 out of 30, as she had done in June 2006. She scored full marks on each stage except Attention and Calculation (involving an exercise in repeated subtractions or in spelling “world” backwards), in which she scored 1 out of 5. A score in excess of 23 is indicative of “normal cognition; no dementia”
“Date set to sign final docs – both A[ttorneys] available. 15.3.10”
“Problem: Memory loss symptom. History: forgets things—makes her very upset, forgets the simplest things. Comment: MMSE 28/30.”
“also forgeyful [sic], caring for her ill husband, refuses help etc. refer falls clinic.”
“Dr Ashton at Third Party Consultation Suspected UTI dort (caroline) seeks trim [i.e. trimethoprim] for susp UTI. Memory loss symptom dort says worse. can she be assessed and referred. see at an appt., for 6-cit and caroline linton [Dr Caroline Linton, Consultant Psychiatrist] referral”
“V came again to sit with Ron. Didn’t ask if she could, didn’t speak a word to me. Went without a word as usual.”
“There was a falling out between myself and my mother, but I never ceased to care about her or to be anxious about her and my step-father’s welfare, and, when we began seeing each other again in 2010, it was as if nothing had happened.”
“My darling Carolyne, I realize the hurt you must be feeling at this time. I do know that Vicki has been talking about you. Please darling, put it down as ignorance. The money I have given you is nothing to do with Vicki. I have worked hard for a long time and will use what I have earned in my own way. Please love don’t worry any more. Love from Mum xxx”
“James stated they [that is, Ron and Mary] wanted to make new Wills (this indicated that he believed they already have Wills). … He asked that I call them … to arrange to visit them …”
“SLP talking to Mrs Mary Wadge … Mr Wadge answered the telephone but asked to speak to Mrs Mary Wadge. Mrs Wadge came onto the phone and SLP introduced herself and asked whether Mrs Wadge remembered attending our office in the summer and our appointment. She said she did. I explained that her son James had requested I call regarding making Wills. I asked whether she wanted to change her Will and she told me that it was her husband who was to make the Will. She said that things had changed and he wanted to make a Will. Her husband Mr Wadge was obviously in the background and it was obvious he wanted to know who was calling as at one point Mrs Wadge had to break off and say it was the solicitor. He seemed very anxious to know who it was. Mrs Wadge told me there had been some changes that was why he wanted to make a Will. I asked if she had her Will in a safe place. She told me that she did not have it and she though[t] we were storing it. I explained that we did not have the Will here in storage but that she had taken it away with her after our appointment in the summer. I suggested she asked her daughter is [scil. as] she had also attended the appointment. Mrs Wadge stated that her daughter didn’t live around here. SLP said she should check with her as it was very important that the Will was kept safe. I explained we would be writing to her husband regarding matters.”
“However, the Public Guardian is concerned that you and your co-Attorney may require some clearer guidance on how to act as Attorneys. Specifically, this is in relation to gifts. Although Mrs Wadge presently has the capacity to give gifts, the Public Guardian is concerned that if her capacity declines further, she will not be able to make informed decisions on giving gifts. … Therefore, in future if gifts given to you or anyone else by Mrs Wadge are not a) proportionate, and b) for a customary occasion you will be expected to make an application to the Court of Protection to seek their ratification of the gift first as you will be in a position where you will have a conflict of interest.”
“Clinically much improved on discharge. But c/o fluctuating capacity in regards to decision making for future care. Patient discharged to a residential home for respite. To have INCA (independent capacity assessment) in community – to be arranged by social worker.”
“Our mother had capacity until 2013 and dealt with her financial matters for herself and Mr Wadge aside from period when she was in hospital from12th April 2012 we had to assist her.”
“I strongly believe James only initiated this claim because he did not want me to inherit the Property.”
“It is essential . . . that a testator shall understand the nature of the act and its effects; shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing; shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect; and, with a view to the latter object, that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, pervert his sense of right, or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties—that no insane delusion shall influence his will in disposing of his property and bring about a disposal of it which, if the mind had been sound, would not have been made.”
“64. It is also common ground that the burden of proof in relation to testamentary capacity is on the person propounding the will. Where the will is duly executed and appears rational on its face, the court will presume capacity, in which case, the evidential burden shifts to the objector to raise a real doubt as to capacity. If a real doubt is raised, the burden shifts back to the person propounding the will to establish capacity, nonetheless: Key v Key[2010] EWHC 408 (Ch) per Briggs J (as he then was) at [97]. Further, despite the fact that expert evidence may be of great assistance, the issue as to testamentary capacity is a decision for the court: Key v Key at [98].”
“a. To the extent that they are relevant, the First Defendant repeats the matters set out in paragraphs 13 and 15 above. b. In her later years, the deceased was diagnosed with vascular dementia, and had been exhibiting symptoms in that regard for many years, including prior to the making of the Will. c. In June 2006 the deceased was referred by her GP to a memory clinic after reporting that she had been having problems with memory deficit for over a year. d. By around November 2007 the deceased was unable to walk more than 100 yards due to shortness of breath. e. In around May 2008 James and Svetlana Wilkes moved from Devon on a permanent basis to provide care to both the deceased and Ronald Wadge due to each of them suffering from declining mental and cognitive health issues. f. By that stage, the First Defendant understands that the deceased was already exhibiting significant symptoms of confusion and progressive dementia, including regularly losing money around the house; forgetting to do (or how to do) simple tasks; experiencing hallucinations; and unusual behaviour, such as giving rotten fruit to family members as Christmas presents. g. The deceased’s deterioration accelerated from 2009 onwards, but for the avoidance of doubt she was significantly symptomatic at and before the time of her purportedly executing the Will. h. For the deceased to have instructed HSBC that she was unmarried, and for her not to make any reference to her husband within the Will, is only explicable by reference to her declining cognitive ability at the material time. i. In taking instructions for the preparation of the Will, those instructed failed to apply the ‘golden rule’ principles set out in Kenward v Adams (1975). j. The First Defendant intends in due course to obtain a report from a suitably qualified independent expert into the matters set out above with a view to establishing that the deceased lacked capacity at the material time. k. In all the circumstances, the deceased was at the time of the execution of the Will in such a condition of mind and memory as to be unable to understand the nature of the act and its effects, or the extent of the property of which she was disposing, or to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which she ought to give effect.”
“This lady of 73 years presents with a 2-year history of memory decline. … On memory testing there is evidence of mild but global cognitive impairment. Further investigation is warranted at this stage before reaching a diagnosis.”
“On memory testing today on the MMSE, she scored 19/30. This is a drop of several points since I carried out this test in February of this year. Although there is a background of stress, both present, recent and past and there is no doubt she is quite exhausted in her role as carer, it is also clear that she has a progressive cognitive decline and it is likely that diagnosis is of a dementia of mixed aetiology.”
“It was obvious that from talking to the patient her memory was an issue. She was unable to recall some past events but was also having difficulty recalling recent day to day events ... However l also note the overall gradual deterioration in memory with a history of fatigue and tiredness over the last couple of months. I would be inclined to do a CT headscan to rule out any space occupying lesions … I wouldn’t be surprised to find a small vessel disease picture on scanning.” • Fifth, I have noted above Mary’s admission to hospital in April 2012 and to the residential home in June 2012, as well as Pam O’Brien’s assessment of Mary’s capacity to make a decision as to visiting in July 2012. The following month, however, a Community Resources Team Nurse Assessor recorded that the history provided by Mary “was unreliable because of her dementing illness.” • Sixth, on or about7 November 2012 Pam O’Brien and Dr Linton produced a joint assessment of Mary on the instructions of solicitors acting for James and Carolyne as Mary’s attorneys. The concluding paragraphs state as follows: “The Secondary Mental Health Services team has not been asked at any point over the last two years to undertake any capacity assessment concerning financial affairs. Sometimes when a patient is under the care of Dr Linton and the team, then the family or solicitor may ask Dr Linton to comment on ability and competencies in the area of e.g. managing financial affairs or drawing up a Lasting Power of Attorney. This assessment has not been requested of us as a team at any point and so we are unable to state clearly the date on which it was resolved that Mrs Wadge lacked capacity to manage her property and financial affairs. In our opinion, prior to Mrs Wadge being admitted to hospital in April 2012, she did appear to have the capacity to make her own decisions (in general) and this is stated by Pam O'Brien in the notes – ‘has capacity and is able to make her own decisions’ - this being with regard to what care Mr & Mrs Wadge were accepting, as Pam was advising a family member that her mother’s wishes should be respected at that stage. There has been clear evidence of increased cognitive impairment since the hospital admission however, with specific regard to financial affairs, we cannot say with any certainty at which point this competency was lost. At present Mrs Wadge would be unable to independently manage her finances. This lack of capacity is secondary to cognitive impairment. This does fluctuate from time to time, and in the main the impairment concerns recall of information, disorientation in time and lack of awareness of which family members are around and alive.” • Seventh, as mentioned above, the OPG’s investigation into gifts given by Mary concluded in December 2012 with the conclusion that Mary “presently has the capacity to give gifts”
“5.2. Al. During 2004 and 2006, Mrs Wadge was in recovery from various medical procedures that had addressed her cancer. She had a history of atrial fibrillation, suffered from depression and was recorded as having a memory deficit and confusion over dates. 5.3. Al. In addition, she had been caring for her husband who had dementia during June 2008 and was struggling to cope. 5.4. Al. It is my opinion that on the balance of probabilities, Mrs Wadge did not have the mental ability or capacity to make decisions or to remember important decisions made by her during 2008. My opinion is reinforced by the fact that she was diagnosed as having dementia several years later (about 2011 The original version of the report said “(about 2014)”. ) but, in my opinion, with the high probability that her memory had been unreliable and inconsistent several years previously.”
“5.6. A2. It is my opinion that because Mrs Wadge had memory impairment in 2008, I believe that she would not have had sufficient testamentary capacity to make the Will in 2008. Furthermore, it is my opinion that it is unlikely that she would have understood the extent of her estate and understood or appreciated the extent of any claims against the estate by the parties to the proceedings and the consequences of making the Will in the terms which she did.”
“Despite recovering from cancer, I believe that these conditions may well have contributed to her low mood which affects memory functioning and that she would not have had the capacity or ability to make informed decisions at the time of making her Will in 2008.”
“6.2. A5. In terms of mental capacity assessment, Stage 1 (the ‘diagnostic test’), it is my opinion that Mrs Mary Barbara Wadge had impairment of the brain, i.e., cognitive impairment in terms of memory impairment as far back as 2006. It is my opinion that she subsequently deteriorated with a diagnosis of dementia. 6.3. A5. In terms of mental capacity assessment, Stage 2 (the ‘functional test’), it is my opinion that Mrs Mary Barbara Wadge would not have been able to understand the consequences of making her Will in 2008 because of her memory impairment. It is my opinion that she would not have been able to make decisions over her property and finances because of her cognitive impairment and cognitive deterioration due to subsequent dementia. 6.4. A5. It is my opinion that Mrs Mary Barbara Wadge has not met the necessary threshold, i.e., lacked the necessary capacity set by Banks vGoodfellow [1870] LR 5 QB 549. That is, I believe that she did not have the understanding of the act of making her Will because of the effects of having memory impairment. 6.5. A5. It is my opinion that Mrs Mary Barbara Wadge has not met the necessary threshold, i.e., lacked the degree or extent of understanding set by Re Heaney[1978] 1 WLR 770 because she had the symptoms associated with the diagnosis of dementia.”
“It has been suggested that they can find no record of your medical credentials, in particular that you are registered with the GMC and HCPC or British Psychological Council. I am sure that this is not the case and I would be grateful if you could let us have full details of your medical qualifications showing your status to prepare the report.”
“4. You will see that I have considerable expertise in the subject area and that I am a Full Member of the British Neuropsychological Society, Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and registrant of the UK Register of Expert Witnesses. 5. I do not belong to the HCPC [the Health and Care Professions Council] which is for practitioners nor am I registered with the GMC [General Medical Council] which is for doctors!” 80.2 Dr Thompson did not have the advantage of examining Mary. This necessarily limits the weight that can be placed on his opinion. Indeed, when Dr Thompson was questioned by Carolyne’s representatives about the Mini Mental State Examination results in 2006, he accepted that Mary’s score was within the expected range but went on to add that MMSE was “a simple and sometimes unreliable measure” and should always be considered together with questioning by a professional and the impression gained by a professional. (He gave a similar response in respect of the results of the 6-CIT examination in 2011.) Dr Thompson never had an opportunity of forming an impression of Mary. 80.3 Dr Thompson did not have the advantage of familiarity with the witness evidence. Of course, he could not see the witnesses give evidence at trial, as I have done. But as appears from the letter of instruction and from his report, the documentation provided to him comprised only: the medical records; the statements of case; the Will and the LPA and the documents relating to their preparation and execution (though this will not have included Mrs de Vall’s notes, which were only produced at trial); and court orders. If one cannot form an impression of a testatrix from a direct encounter, there is much advantage in doing so from considering the evidence of those who knew her. In addition, there are objective facts (such as the accuracy and cogency of testamentary instructions) that are or might be relevant to the question of testamentary capacity, but the existence or significance of which one is unlikely to be able to assess without reference to the wider body of evidence. 80.4 For reasons set out below, I regard Dr Thompson’s conclusion as to testamentary capacity as inadequately reasoned and evidenced. I think it was Lord Goff of Chieveley who remarked that an ounce of reasoning is worth a pound of opinion; whoever made the remark, it has much to commend it. 80.5 As mentioned above, section 4 of the report contains Dr Thompson’s summary of the “main points” in the documents. The only paragraphs that seem to have any possible bearing on Mary’s testamentary capacity in 2008 are paragraphs 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6. (Those, indeed, are the paragraphs that Dr Thompson identified, as being relevant to memory problems in 2008, when he responded to questions put by those acting for Carolyne.) The three points in these paragraphs are: (i) memory problems in 2006; (ii) confusion over dates in August 2006; (iii) a diagnosis of dementia in July 2011. I have commented on points (i) and (iii) above and shall do so again below. As for point (ii), the “confusion over dates on2 August 2006 ”, the document referred to by Dr Thompson is an entry by a practice nurse in the GP records, which reads: “Telephone encounter with patient slightly confused over dates for inr [International Normalized Ratio: a blood test to assess how long blood takes to clot], book says to have inr taken on 15th but also has appointment on Friday for inr at St Woolos. Advised Friday because of facial pain and medication dr wants inr to be checked. Appointment given to attend surgery on 15th as per inr clinic instructions.”
“The exercise of undue influence on a testator is also one of the grounds on which the admittance of a will to probate may be challenged. The probate doctrine must, however, be carefully distinguished from the availability of equitable relief: indeed, it has been suggested that the ‘only common characteristic with the equitable doctrine is the name’. The probate doctrine applies where such pressure has been placed on the testator as to ‘overpower the volition without convincing the judgment’ and it does not permit the party challenging the will to take advantage of any evidential presumption when seeking to prove such pressure. The probate doctrine can be invoked by any party with standing to challenge the will, as it identifies ‘a species of restraint under which no valid will can be made’. The equitable doctrine, by contrast, does not operate so as to render a transaction invalid: a gift or contract entered into by undue influence is valid and so takes effect unless or until B exercises his or her power to rescind the transaction. The equitable doctrine, it is submitted, is based rather on the idea that, as a result of the undue influence, it would be unconscionable, in a broad sense, for A, as against B, to take advantage of the right acquired by A under the impugned transaction.”
“There is no serious dispute about the law. The approach that I should adopt may be summarised as follows: i) In a case of a testamentary disposition of assets, unlike a lifetime disposition, there is no presumption of undue influence; ii) Whether undue influence has procured the execution of a will is therefore a question of fact; iii) The burden of proving it lies on the person who asserts it. It is not enough to prove that the facts are consistent with the hypothesis of undue influence. What must be shown is that the facts are inconsistent with any other hypothesis. In the modern law this is, perhaps no more than a reminder of the high burden, even on the civil standard, that a claimant bears in proving undue influence as vitiating a testamentary disposition; iv) In this context undue influence means influence exercised either by coercion, in the sense that the testator’s will must be overborne, or by fraud. v) Coercion is pressure that overpowers the volition without convincing the testator’s judgment. It is to be distinguished from mere persuasion, appeals to ties of affection or pity for future destitution, all of which are legitimate. Pressure which causes a testator to succumb for the sake of a quiet life, if carried to an extent that overbears the testator’s free judgment discretion or wishes, is enough to amount to coercion in this sense; vi) The physical and mental strength of the testator are relevant factors in determining how much pressure is necessary in order to overbear the will. The will of a weak and ill person may be more easily overborne than that of a hale and hearty one. As was said in one case simply to talk to a weak and feeble testator may so fatigue the brain that a sick person may be induced for quietness’ sake to do anything. A ‘drip drip’ approach may be highly effective in sapping the will; vii) There is a separate ground for avoiding a testamentary disposition on the ground of fraud. The shorthand used to refer to this species of fraud is ‘fraudulent calumny’. The basic idea is that if A poisons the testator’s mind against B, who would otherwise be a natural beneficiary of the testator’s bounty, by casting dishonest aspersions on his character, then the will is liable to be set aside; viii) The essence of fraudulent calumny is that the person alleged to have been poisoning the testator’s mind must either know that the aspersions are false or not care whether they are true or false. In my judgment if a person believes that he is telling the truth about a potential beneficiary then even if what he tells the testator is objectively untrue, the will is not liable to be set aside on that ground alone; ix) The question is not whether the court considers that the testator’s testamentary disposition is fair because, subject to statutory powers of intervention, a testator may dispose of his estate as he wishes. The question, in the end, is whether in making his dispositions, the testator has acted as a free agent.”
“9. … I was then told about ongoing proceedings for the Office of the Public Guardian regarding Vicky’s allegations as to the misuse of her parents’ funds. I was left in no doubt that Vicky was being portrayed to her mother by Carolyne as the ‘difficult one’. Notwithstanding all of this I have no doubt that Mary loved Vicky and had not purposely sought the distancing or cessation of communication with her.”
“11. Carolyne had the most influence on Mary, and was able to control who Mary had contact with, positively amongst most of the family but negatively for Vicky. With hindsight her conduct was subtly coercive and controlling over Mary’s contacts but always presented as behaving in Mary’s best interests. Until I was presented with evidence from Vicky to the contrary, I believed it was okay as the eldest child for Carolyne to be the biggest influence in Mary’s life. However I now believe that Mary would be very proud of Vicky for seeking restorative justice on her behalf. I also believe she would be heartbroken that her trust in Carolyne to have control of her finances was abused.”
“What is involved is simply the satisfaction of the test of knowledge and approval, but the court insists that, given that suspicion, it must be the more clearly shown that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the will so that the suspicion is dispelled. Suspicion may be aroused in varying degrees, depending on the circumstances, and what is needed to dispel the suspicion will vary accordingly. In the ordinary probate case knowledge and approval are established by the propounder of the will proving the testamentary capacity of the deceased and the due execution of the will, from which the court will infer that knowledge and approval. But in a case where the circumstances are such as to arouse the suspicion of the court the propounder must prove affirmatively that knowledge and approval so as to satisfy the court that the will represents the wishes of the deceased. All the relevant circumstances will be scrutinised by the court which will be ‘vigilant and jealous’ in examining the evidence in support of the will (Barry v Butlin (1838) 11 Moo PC 480 at p. 483 per Parke B.).”
“a. To the extent that they are relevant, the First Defendant adopts and repeats the matters set out in paragraph 13 above. Beyond that, the matters set out below are more than sufficient to excite the suspicion of the court such that the Claimant is required to prove that the deceased knew and approved of the content of the Will. b. The will is not rational on its face, in that it seeks to entirely exclude the First Defendant as one of the deceased’s three children—it is inconceivable and contrary to the deceased’s previously expressed wishes that she would have knowingly done so. c. The deceased appears to have given instructions to HSBC to prepare the Will on the basis that she was not married at the time, when she clearly was. Ronald Wadge is not mentioned within the Will, and these factors also go the irrationality of the Will on its face. d. The Will was not prepared as the deceased would have been expected to have dealt with such a matter, i.e. via her own solicitor as set out in paragraph 13. e. All correspondence concerning the preparation of the Will was sent to the Claimant’s address, that having been the address given by the Claimant to those instructed for communication purposes. No documents were sent to the deceased directly. f. The Claimant is the primary beneficiary of the deceased’s estate under the terms of the Will and was present and instrumental in the provision of instructions for the Will. g. For the avoidance of doubt, the First Defendant understands that the Claimant was with the deceased whenever she spoke or gave instructions to HSBC in connection with the preparation of the Will. h. At the relevant time, the deceased was physically and emotionally vulnerable (as set out below in relation to testamentary capacity); was subject to undue influence by the Claimant as aforesaid; and was heavily reliant upon the Claimant, particularly in relation to her finances. i. In all the circumstances, the First Defendant avers that the deceased did not know of or approve the content of the Will by reason of the aforesaid matters.”