The Judgment is well worth a read. In this case a paralegal (giving evidence now as a fully qualified solicitor) misinterpreted a standard form which had been prepared by a secretary, and produced a will which was not in accordance with the Testator's intentions. 

The Judge gives helpful commentary at paras 54 onwards of the Judgment, which flag up the errors of the will writer, and which would be useful to those in the field. It was, unsurprisingly, highlighted that the attendance notes on file were more reliable than recollection some 7 years later.  And noted that the will writer did not ask the Testator why his instructions had changed, did not record that the will had been read to the Testator, and the letters sent were "thoroughly misleading" which led to the Testator believing that the will accorded with his wishes.

For those who attended my February webinar, it really does highlight the importance of thorough attendance notes and clear written advice, it is not good practice to rely upon standard forms only as evidence of the Testator's instructions.

For those who missed it, feel free to contact me for the notes which give practical guidance on avoiding mistakes.

DM me or contact