A solicitor said yesterday he was not sure if his signature was on a will that left Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum's vast fortune to fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen. Winfield Wong Wing-cheung told the trial to determine Wang's heir that handwriting on her 2006 will looked 'similar' to his own. 'But I don't know whether this signature was signed by me or not,' he said. 'I can't confirm it.' Mr Wong's testimony was central to allegations levelled by Wang's Chinachem Charitable Foundation that Mr Chan forged the signatures of the solicitor and the late billionaire to win control of an estimated HK$100 billion estate. Both sides point to rival wills, dated four years apart, to claim the fortune. On Wednesday, Mr Wong testified that he, Wang and Chinachem Group sales executive Ng Shung-mo signed a 'partial will' at a meeting in 2006. The document appeared to leave about HK$10 million - a fraction of the estate - to a person surnamed Chan, Mr Wong testified. Chinachem argued that the document had a similar format to the will that Mr Chan later claimed would make him Wang's heir. Yesterday, Chinachem barrister Denis Chang SC read portions of Mr Wong's witness statement, which suggested neither he nor Mr Ng carefully read the so-called partial will that Wang asked them to witness on October 16, 2006. A day or two after the meeting, Mr Ng asked the solicitor what they had signed and Mr Wong said his memory of the document was sketchy, the court heard. Mr Wong also questioned whether he brought a chop bearing his firm's name to the meeting on October 16, 2006. The chop's imprint later appeared on Mr Chan's will. 'But to my recollection, that day I did not bring chops along with me,' Mr Wong said. 'My practice has been, if I have to bring chops [to a meeting], I bring two, one being my name chop and the other is the company chop. On that day, I probably didn't bring the chops.' Moreover, he also had no recollection that he had asked any of his staff to bring him the chop on any occasions. Concerning the stamping of the firm's chop 'upside down' on the 2006 will, Mr Wong said he would usually stamp chops the right way up. Two handwriting experts were scheduled to testify later about the signatures on Wang's 2006 will. Chinachem's expert Robert Radley had concluded the signatures were fake, the court heard, while Mr Chan's expert, Australian forensic examiner Paul Westwood, was expected to rebut the forgery claim. This week, Wang's charity filed an application to challenge Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon's decision that allowed Mr Westwood to testify, after Mr Chan's first expert concluded the signatures were bogus. That sparked accusations that Mr Chan's legal team was 'expert shopping' after their first-choice analyst issued an opinion that could sink his case. The Court of Appeal was expected to hear arguments while the trial before Mr Justice Lam continues. At a pretrial hearing in October, Mr Chan's legal team accused Mr Wong and Mr Ng of withholding evidence crucial to the fung shui master's case. The pair played an 'elaborate charade', saying they had not seen a copy of the late tycoon's partial will and then refused to testify without a court order when their initial claim was revealed to be untrue, Mr Chan's lawyers alleged. The cross-examination of Mr Wong was expected to begin today. This week, the trial also heard that Wang had asked Mr Chan, who claimed the pair were lovers for more than a decade, to get involved in her Chinachem property empire. But Mr Chan refused because he feared working with Wang could ruin their relationship and spark rumours that he would destroy a company built by Wang and her husband, Teddy Wang Tei-huei, who was kidnapped in 1990 and later declared dead.