The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that she failed to rebut the presumption that a lost will was destroyed by the testator with the intention of revoking it.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was entitled to consider the testator's intention as circumstantial evidence supporting the presumption of revocation, and that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the loss of the original will.
Costs were not awarded to the appellant out of the estate.
