The High Court has adjourned proceedings in the estate dispute over the will of the late St Peter MP Asot Michael to May 20, as the court works to appoint a handwriting expert to determine whether the signature on the impugned will is authentic.

Acting High Court Judge M.E. Birnie Stephenson issued the ruling on April 22, directing both parties to submit information on proposed expert witnesses within 14 days, including each candidate’s willingness to serve, estimated time to prepare a report, estimated costs, and availability to give evidence.

Michael, who served as MP for St Peter for two decades and as Minister of Tourism, Economic Development, Investment and Energy, was found dead at his Dry Hill home on November 5, 2024.

A will signed in March 2021 has since become the subject of a court dispute between Michael’s son, Nigel Michael, and his sisters Teresa-Anne and Soraya Michael.

Nigel Michael, represented by Hugh Marshall with Chantal Marshall of Marshall and Co., contends the will is a forgery, alleging his father was heavily intoxicated and lacked the mental capacity when he signed it.

The sisters, represented by Dr. Errol Cort with Alketz Joseph and Jada Cort, dispute that position.

According to the public court document, both parties agreed that a handwriting expert is needed to assist the court in determining whether the handwriting and signature on the will are those of Asot Michael.

However, both sides have been unable to agree on who should be appointed, with Asot’s sisters raising concerns of potential bias over the Nigel’s recommended expert, Beverly East, arguing she may have already been briefed on his position that the will is a forgery.

The court rejected that argument, finding no evidence to support the allegation of bias.

“The court does not accept as a priori the assumption that because the expert is being recommended by the applicant it means that they have briefed the expert on their case,” Justice Stephenson said, noting that an allegation of bias is serious and requires clear and cogent basis to sustain.

The court also noted that the applicant’s attempt to find a mutually agreed expert fell short of genuine cooperation, finding that Nigel’s counsel had consulted the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of National Drug and Money Laundering Control Policy rather than engaging directly with his aunts as required.

Justice Stephenson directed that a single joint expert be appointed, with both parties jointly and severally liable for the associated fees and expenses.

The court reviewed the CV of all four candidates proposed by both sides and found all to be suitably qualified but withheld final selection pending the additional information.