A high-profile estate dispute centered on the late former Antiguan politician Asot Michael has been paused until May 20, as legal teams on both sides work toward resolving disagreements over appointing an independent handwriting expert to verify the authenticity of a contested last will and testament.
Presiding over the case, Acting High Court Judge M.E. Birnie Stephenson issued a formal order requiring both factions of Michael’s family to file detailed documentation of their candidate expert witnesses by the next hearing. The required submissions include each candidate’s scheduling availability, projected service fees, and confirmation of their willingness to take on the assessment role.
Michael, who previously served as the Member of Parliament for St Peter and held a cabinet minister position in the Antiguan government, was discovered deceased at his Dry Hill residence in November 2024. At the center of the legal conflict is a will dated March 2021, which is being contested by Michael’s only son, Nigel Michael, and upheld by Michael’s two sisters, Teresa-Anne Michael and Soraya Michael.
Represented by attorneys Hugh Marshall and Chantal Marshall, Nigel Michael has advanced two core claims against the 2021 will: first, he alleges the document is a deliberate forgery, and second, he claims his father suffered from impaired mental capacity caused by alcohol intoxication at the time the will was signed. In response, the sisters, whose legal team is led by Dr Errol Cort, Alketz Joseph and Jada Cort, have categorically denied all of Nigel’s accusations.
Court records confirm that while both sides acknowledge the necessity of a handwriting analysis to resolve the authenticity question, they have failed to reach a consensus on which expert should conduct the examination. The sisters raised formal objections to the expert candidate put forward by Nigel Michael, Beverly East, citing unsubstantiated concerns that the expert could hold implicit bias in favor of Nigel’s position.
Judge Stephenson ultimately rejected the bias allegation against East, ruling that the claimants had not presented any concrete evidence to support the claim. The justice emphasized that serious accusations of expert bias require a “clear and cogent basis” that was absent in this instance. The judge also issued criticism toward Nigel Michael’s legal team, faulting them for failing to conduct appropriate prior consultations with the opposing side before nominating their candidate, a misstep that undermined efforts to select a mutually agreed expert.
In a final ruling to move the case forward, the court mandated that a single jointly appointed expert must be selected to conduct the analysis. It also ruled that all associated costs and expenses for the expert’s work will be split equally between the two disputing parties.