214. First, Bane clearly identified Zoran as being on the side of his wife and sister. For example, Mr Kaczmarski said that Bane regarded the relationship between Zoran and his wife and sister as being “too close”; Mr Evans said he remembered Bane saying that Zoran had taken his wife’s side over the divorce; and Barbara Yerolemou said Bane told her that his wife had turned Zoran against him. This evidence, from witnesses called on behalf of the CPA, confirms Zoran’s own testimony about the reason for his father’s decision to stop speaking to him: “I think he just thought that I had taken the side of my mother, and she had had the locks changed, and I was in league with her, so he decided to cut contact with me.” 215. Secondly, there was the incident of the changing of the locks at Westmead House. All the evidence indicates that Bane believed, quite wrongly, that Zoran was partly responsible for this, or at the very least had failed to warn him that Mirjana had changed the locks. Mr Evans confirmed that Bane saw this as an extremely important event, which signalled to him that his son had taken his wife’s side. Dr Reveley also agreed that this was a significant event, saying in cross-examination “I think it looks as if something negative happened in his dealings with Zoran, and I think the lock changing is a likely candidate”. Further support for this view is of course provided by Bane’s diary entry for 24 July 1985, which I have already discussed in paragraphs 85 and 86 above. Bane also returned to the incident in an undated document which he wrote (in more than one version) called the “History of Westmead House”: “I explained [to Zoran and his girlfriend Ann] the problems and my recent arrangement to transfer £100,000 to be in trust for him. I said I shall be at Westmead tomorrow … but when I arrived I used my key to enter the house but the locks had been changed. Zoran opened the door he mentioned he forgot to tell about the lock last night. I took some things shirt etc and I was shocked. That was the last time I saw Zoran.” 216. Thirdly, there is the evidence of the Inland Revenue domicile questionnaire in February 1988, where in answer to the question where his wife and children resided Bane said “I despised them totally. They are part of the conspiracy against me, which wanted to destroy me financially, socially and physically. They don’t exist any more for me” (see further paragraph 152 above.) 217. Fourthly, there is the evidence that Bane believed Zoran had tried to drown him on the links at St Andrews in April 1984: see paragraph 82 above. While these diary entries may look comparatively innocuous if read in isolation, the fact that Bane chose to record the incident on two separate occasions is in itself significant, and in the light of all the other evidence I am inclined to agree with the sinister interpretation that Professor Howard placed upon them. Plainly, if Bane suffered from the deluded belief that Zoran had tried to drown him, and if that belief persisted until his 1996 diary entry, the conclusion that this belief may have affected Bane’s assessment of Zoran’s claim to benefit under the 1988 and 1989 Wills is inescapable. 218. Finally, although I have rejected the submission that Bane ever believed Zoran not to be his son, the mere fact that he often used figurative language to the effect that Zoran