A second handwriting expert could shed more light on whether Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum's will was forged, a judge said yesterday. In a written ruling, Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon argued that letting more than one analyst testify at the trial over Wang's HK$100 billion estate could help him decide who should inherit the fortune. Wang's Chinachem Charitable Foundation had bitterly opposed fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen's request to call a second handwriting expert, after his first-choice analyst, Audrey Giles, concluded that Wang's signature on a will in his possession had been faked. The charity dismissed Mr Chan's bid to call Australian forensic examiner Paul Westwood as 'blatant expert shopping'. Mr Westwood was expected to rebut forgery claims from Chinachem's expert, Robert Radley. In his ruling, Mr Justice Lam said there was evidence that Mr Westwood's analysis looked at details ignored by the other two experts. Specifically, his report dealt with similarities between a signature on Mr Chan's will and samples of Wang's handwriting, unlike the other forensic examiners, the judge said. He had previously ruled that Mr Westwood could testify. Yesterday he released his reasons for that decision. 'It may be that Dr Radley and Dr Giles may have good reasons for not covering those grounds in their respective reports,' he wrote. '[But] this is not a case where [Mr Chan] seeks leave to substitute an expert simply because the conclusions of Mr Westwood are more favourable.' The judge said he also worried about a situation in which Mr Westwood could help Mr Chan's legal team cross-examine Dr Radley without being questioned by Chinachem about his own methodology. 'I wholly agree that expert shopping is undesirable and the court should discourage such practice,' Mr Justice Lam wrote. 'The just resolution of a dispute does not mean that whenever a party is able to obtain a more favourable opinion he should be permitted to adduce it as evidence.'