was not his son is in itself a strong indication that Bane’s relationship with Zoran had been poisoned by his delusions. 219. On behalf of the CPA, Mr Simmonds QC submitted that Bane’s decision to disinherit Zoran was explicable on the basis that Bane had become disillusioned with his son, and realised that he was never going to change. By 1988 they had not seen each other for over two years, and were becoming estranged. Mr Simmonds suggested that Bane was a disappointed father, who did not wish Zoran to inherit any part of his estate if he was not going to make anything of his life. He suggested that this decision was a natural progression from the 1984 Codicil, by which Bane had postponed the age at which Zoran would take his estate from 25 to 35. At that stage, Bane had not yet finally given up his hopes for his son, but the postponement of the vesting age is a clear indication that he was concerned, and wished to give him a final opportunity to prove himself. He had no wish to leave Zoran destitute, as is shown by his intention to give him £100,000 to establish himself in 1985, and his arrangement with his sister and mother that the Gleneagles property should be transferred to Zoran. 220. These submissions were skilfully advanced by Mr Simmonds, but I am unable to accept them. Bane’s disappointment with Zoran’s lifestyle and failure to embark upon a career was already well established by the date of the 1984 Codicil, but Bane’s reaction to it, assuming that he then had testamentary capacity, was merely to postpone the age at which Zoran would become absolutely entitled to his estate by 10 years. This was a natural and measured step for a father in Bane’s position to take, and it was no doubt primarily prompted by the removal of Mirjana’s life interest which meant that the gift to Zoran was no longer a gift in remainder but would take effect immediately following his own death. It is, however, one thing to postpone the age of vesting by 10 years. It is quite another thing to cut out one’s only child from any share in one’s estate. I do not for a moment believe that Bane would have taken this extreme step if he had not been under the influence of his deluded beliefs. Furthermore, the suggestion that Bane had somehow made adequate provision for Zoran outside his will is in my judgment unsustainable. The Gleneagles property was not Bane’s to give away, and although he was no doubt glad to see Zoran provided for in this way, he made it clear in his letter to Zoran dated 16 March 1986 that Zoran had to be “very thankful, grateful and devoted” to his aunt and mother. This may have been meant by Bane ironically – he was by now firmly in the grip of his delusions but it certainly provides no foundation for any suggestion that Bane consciously engineered the transfer of the property to Zoran. Indeed, Jovanka’s evidence was that Bane’s desire to have confirmation of the transfer was no more than a device for holding up the process of settlement with her. As to the £100,000, I have already said more than once that Bane never translated his intention to give £100,000 to Zoran into action, and one reason for this may well have been that he associated it with the incident when the locks were changed. Certainly the “History of Westmead House” suggests some kind of causal connection between the projected gift, the changing of the locks and Bane’s final estrangement from Zoran. Finally, and in any event, even if Bane had given the Gleneagles property and £100,000 to Zoran, this would have represented meagre provision indeed in the context of Bane’s personal wealth which must have amounted to several million pounds by the mid 1980s. 221. The suggestion was also made that, even though Bane’s wish to give £100,000 to Zoran was thwarted by the freezing of his bank accounts, he nevertheless achieved the