Challenge to validity of will - handwriting expert's conclusion that signature forged - expert's evidence not preferred to that of lay witnessFuller v Strum: ChD (Jules Sher QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge): 20 December 2000The claimant was a beneficiary under a will, the defendant challenged the validity of the will on the ground among other things that the deceased's signature had been forged.

There was before the judge a written report from a handwriting expert which concluded that the signature had been forged.

There was oral evidence of lay witnesses who gave evidence that the signature was genuine.

The defendant argued that the judge should prefer the expert's evidence following the case of In Re B [2000] 1 WLR 790.

Barbara Rich (instructed by Bunkers, Brighton and Hove) for the claimant: Jack Mitchell (instructed by Embertons, Enfield) for the defendant.Held, finding in favour of the claimant on the forgery issue, that the witnesses in In Re B had been medical experts; that there was a difference between the type of expert evidence led in In Re B and the evidence contained in the handwriting expert's report; that the later type of evidence amounted to no more than the drawing of inferences from facts observable as much by the expert as by a lay witness; that it was not necessary in this case to prefer the expert's evidence; and that, balancing all the evidence, it could not be said that the will had been forged.