206. In cross-examination, however, both these points evaporated. As to the first point, Dr Reveley accepted that the first element of testamentary capacity needs to be considered in the abstract, and that Bane’s delusions did not impact on this. In relation to the second point, she confirmed that she was not aware of any specific evidence to support the possibility to which she referred. The possibility is therefore a purely speculative one, to which the Court can attach no weight. 207. The crucial issue in the case therefore resolves itself into the question whether elements (c) and (d) in the Banks v Goodfellow test were satisfied when Bane made the 1988 and 1989 Wills. I shall begin by considering the position of Zoran, who was of course the sole residuary beneficiary (subject to attaining the specified age, and subject to Mirjana’s life interest) in the 1971 and 1974 Wills. He was also the sole beneficiary of the 1984 Codicil, subject to attaining the age of 35. As Bane’s only son, he was prima facie the natural and obvious person for Bane to leave his estate to once his clean-break divorce from Mirjana had been finalised. Can it therefore be said that, in deciding to disinherit him entirely in favour of the CPA, and the projected establishment of a foundation in his father’s memory, Bane was nevertheless able fully to comprehend and appreciate Zoran’s claims to benefit from his estate? And can it be said that the delusions from which Bane admittedly suffered had no influence on the dispositions of Bane’s property effected by the 1988 or 1989 Wills? 208. In the light of all the evidence which I have heard, and the very full documentary record, I am left in no doubt that these questions must be answered in the negative. It is abundantly clear, in my judgment, that in 1988 and 1989 Bane was unable to form a proper appreciation of Zoran’s claims upon his estate, and that his natural affection for Zoran had been poisoned or distorted by his delusions to such an extent that he was wholly unable to dispose of his property in the way which he would have done if of sound mind. 209. In considering these questions it is important to begin by looking at Bane’s life before his illness struck him. All the evidence is that until 1984 Bane was a devoted family man, who had a happy relationship with his wife, was very close to his mother and sister, and displayed the normal affection of a father towards his son, Zoran. Jovanka described the family in her evidence as being “very, very close”, and said that “Bane was fantastic, you know, with mother, with all of us. This illness changed him completely”. This evidence was not challenged, and was confirmed by the testimony of other witnesses who had known Bane before his illness, notably Mr Rinaldi and Mr Brown, the latter of whom painted a vivid picture of family life at Gleneagles in the 1970s. It is true that, as Zoran grew older, Bane became increasingly disappointed with his lifestyle and his evident disinclination to follow his father into business. Indeed, Mr Brown’s impression was that by the late 1970s Bane and Zoran were no longer particularly close. However, there was no question of a rift between them, or of Bane in any way disowning his son. He continued to support him financially until 1984, and took no steps to revoke his 1974 Will. Furthermore, several entries in Bane’s diary testify to his underlying affection for his son, even after he was in the grip of delusions. 210. This picture of a happy and normal family life was subverted, and then completely overturned, by the onset of Bane’s illness. His increasingly strange behaviour was noticed by friends such as Mr Rinaldi, and the documentary record contains several examples of friendships or family contacts which were abruptly terminated by Bane