Fuller v Strum

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
Judgment Date20 December 2000
Date20 December 2000


Before Mr Jules Sher, QC


Experts - expert evidence on handwriting - lay evidence preferred

Preferring lay evidence to expert

The evidence of a lay witness could be preferred to that of a handwriting expert.

Mr Jules Sher, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division, so held on December 20, 2000 when finding that the will of Max Strum, deceased and father of Geoffrey Bernard Strum, the defendant, had not been forged but that Max Strum did not know or approve of its contents except for one legacy, in an action brought by Michael Fuller, the claimant, to propound the will.

HIS LORDSHIP said that on the question as to whether the will was forged the handwriting expert, Dr Audrey Giles, was of the opinion that the will had been forged whereas the lay witnesses gave evidence that it had not.

Although in In re B (a Minor)WLR ((2000) 1 WLR 790) the Court of Appeal refused to accept the evidence of two lay witnesses in preference to the uncontroverted expert medical evidence of two consultant radiologists, there was a difference between the type of expert evidence led in In re B and the evidence contained in the handwriting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Naylor v Maher
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 14 Septiembre 2012
    ...... LEAHY v CORBOY 1969 IR 148 JR IN RE 1993 ILRM 657 GILLETTE v HOLT 2000 AER (D) 299 2001 CH 210 2000 2 AER 289 FULLER v STRUM 2002 1 WLR 1097 CRAIG v LAOUREUX 1920 AC 349 SCAMMELL v FARMER 2008 EWHC 1100 (CH) KEATING ON PROBATE 3ED 2007 PAR ......
  • Henry Dominic Chicheley Thornton and Others v Mary Virginia Chicheley Woodhouse and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 10 Abril 2017
    ...... trust for the benefit of my relatives and dependents and in the exercise of your discretion under that trust, you may have regard to any instrument expressing my wishes. This letter is intended to provide you with guidance as to my wishes. It does not impose any trust or legal obligation on ...If it is not too much bother may I have a fuller explanation of that, which on the face of it sounds most promising". CRS did not reply to this letter until almost 11 months later, on 17 October ......
  • Sherrington and Others v Sherrington
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 29 Diciembre 2006
    ......He described the evidence as establishing no more than that Yvonne was instrumental in drafting the Will and put it before the deceased for execution and that the deceased thereupon executed it. The judge found that the deceased ... court is not required to make some moral judgment nor is it given some licence to refuse probate to a document of which it disapproves (see Fuller v Strum [2002] 1 WLR 1097 at paras. 33 and 65). As Chadwick L.J. said in that case at para. 65: "The question is not whether the ......
  • Pauline Greaves (Claimant/Defendant to Counterclaim) v Gary Matthew Stolkin
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 3 Mayo 2013
    ...to take effect according to its terms, the Court must be "satisfied that the contents do truly represent the testator's intentions" (see Fuller v Strum [2001] EWCA Civ 1879, [2002] 1 WLR 1097, at paragraph 65). 68 In the past, the Courts tended to adopt a two-stage approach to issues of kn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT