Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline: Validity of Will Dispute

In Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Lai Siu Chiu, addressed a dispute between two sisters, Chee Mu Lin Muriel (plaintiff) and Chee Ka Lin Caroline (defendant), over the validity of two wills made by their mother, Madam Goh Hun Keong. The plaintiff sought to propound a 1996 will, while the defendant defended the validity of a 1989 will. The interveners, Alexander Chee and Maureen Chee, supported the defendant. The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, declared the 1989 will as the valid last will of Madam Goh, and allowed the defendant to proceed with the grant of probate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's action dismissed; defendant's counterclaim allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A dispute over the validity of two wills due to unequal affections of a mother for her children. The court declared the 1989 will as valid.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chee Mu Lin MurielPlaintiffIndividualAction DismissedLostMolly Lim, June Hong
Chee Ka Lin CarolineDefendantIndividualCounterclaim AllowedWonGiam Chin Toon, Wong Hur Yuin
Chee Ping Chian AlexanderIntervenerIndividualSupported Defendant's CaseNeutralChew Kei-Jin, Guy Ghazali
Maureen CheeIntervenerIndividualSupported Defendant's CaseNeutralChew Kei-Jin, Guy Ghazali

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Molly LimWong Tan & Molly Lim LLC
June HongWong Tan & Molly Lim LLC
Giam Chin ToonWee Swee Teow & Co
Wong Hur YuinWee Swee Teow & Co
Chew Kei-JinTan Rajah & Cheah
Guy GhazaliTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. Madam Goh executed a will in 1989, appointing the defendant as the sole executrix and trustee.
  2. Madam Goh executed another will in 1996, dividing her residual estate among five of her children, excluding the defendant.
  3. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the 1989 will, seeking to propound the 1996 will.
  4. The defendant contended that Madam Goh lacked the mental capacity to execute the 1996 will and that it was not prepared in accordance with her instructions.
  5. The defendant argued that the plaintiff unduly influenced Madam Goh to execute the 1996 will.
  6. Madam Goh had transferred a half-share of a property to the defendant and her husband at a price of $2.5 million.
  7. Medical evidence indicated that Madam Goh's mental condition deteriorated between 1995 and 1996, with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline, Suit 238/2007, [2009] SGHC 229

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Madam Goh executed the 1989 Will.
Dr. Chee passed away.
Plaintiff wrote a letter to Alexander expressing objections to the property transfer.
Completion of the sale and purchase of the half share of the property.
Plaintiff discovered the sale transaction.
Madam Goh's mental condition started deteriorating.
Madam Goh fell and injured her head.
Plaintiff, MO, and Dr. Goh met to discuss family matters and Madam Goh's care.
Madam Goh executed the 1996 Will.
Madam Goh executed a Power of Attorney in favor of the plaintiff.
Madam Goh executed a Revocation of the Power of Attorney.
Madam Goh executed a Power of Attorney in favor of the defendant.
Plaintiff applied to appoint herself and Ping Swee as the Committee of Madam Goh’s estate.
Madam Goh passed away.
Defendant applied for a grant of probate for the 1989 Will.
Plaintiff lodged a caveat against the grant of probate of the 1989 Will.
The Interveners were given leave to intervene in this action.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Testamentary Capacity
    • Outcome: The court found that Madam Goh did not possess the requisite testamentary capacity when she executed the 1996 Will.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Soundness of mind
      • Understanding the nature of the act
      • Understanding the extent of property
      • Comprehension of claims
    • Related Cases:
      • Banks v Goodfellow LR 5 QB 549
  2. Knowledge and Approval of Will Contents
    • Outcome: The court found that Madam Goh did not know and approve of the contents of the 1996 Will.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Suspicious circumstances
      • Affirmative proof of knowledge
      • Understanding of will provisions
    • Related Cases:
      • Re Morris, Lloyds Bank Ltd v Peake [1970] 1 All ER 1057
  3. Undue Influence
    • Outcome: The court did not make a decision on whether the elements of undue influence were present in this case.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Coercion
      • Fraud
      • Improper influence

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration against the validity of the 1989 Will
  2. Declaration for the validity of the 1996 Will
  3. Setting aside the order of court granting probate of the 1989 Will
  4. Grant of Probate of the 1989 Will

9. Cause of Actions

  • Challenge to Validity of Will
  • Propounding a Will

10. Practice Areas

  • Estate Planning
  • Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Arthur v BokenhamN/AYesArthur v Bokenham (1708) 11 Od Rep 148United KingdomCited generally for the principle that the testatrix must be shown to be of sound disposing mind at the time when her Will was made.
Banks v GoodfellowQueen's BenchYesBanks v Goodfellow LR 5 QB 549United KingdomCited as the leading case for the criterion for testamentary capacity.
Boughton v KnightN/AYesBoughton v Knight (1873) 3 P. & D. 64United KingdomCited for the principle that the testatrix must have a memory to recall the several persons who may be fitting objects of the testatrix’s bounty.
Harwood v BakerN/AYesHarwood v Baker (1840) 3 Moo.P.C. 282United KingdomCited for the principle that the testatrix must have a memory to recall the several persons who may be fitting objects of the testatrix’s bounty.
Scammell v FarmerN/AYesScammell v Farmer [2008] WTLR 1261United KingdomCited to show that there is some doubt as to whether the Mental Capacity Act has any relevance to wills made outside the statutory jurisdiction.
George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob GeorgeSingapore Court of AppealYesGeorge Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George [2009] 3 SLR 631SingaporeCited for the function of the court to decide whether the testator has testamentary capacity at the relevant time.
R Mahendran v R ArumuganathanSingapore Court of AppealYesR Mahendran v R Arumuganathan [1999] 2 SLR 579SingaporeCited for the relevant legal principles pertaining to testamentary capacity.
Barry v ButlinN/AYesBarry v Butlin (1838) 2 Moo 480United KingdomCited for the principle that the legal burden of propounding a will lies in every case upon the party propounding the will.
Waring v WaringN/AYesWaring v Waring (1848) 6 Moo.P.C. 341United KingdomCited to show that the evidential burden of proof may shift from one party to another in the course of a case.
Eu Boon Yeap & Ors v Ewe Kean HoeMalaysian Court of AppealYesEu Boon Yeap & Ors v Ewe Kean Hoe [2008] 2 MLJ 868MalaysiaCited to show that the evidential burden of proof may shift from one party to another in the course of a case.
Symes v GreenN/AYesSymes v Green 164 ER 785United KingdomCited for the principle that if a duly executed Will is rational on the face of it, a rebuttable presumption arises that the testatrix had testamentary capacity.
Tan Teck Khong v Tan Pian MengN/AYesTan Teck Khong v Tan Pian Meng [2002] 4 SLR 616SingaporeCited for the principle that in the event that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, the burden of proof is then shifted to the propounder of the Will.
Re Morris, Lloyds Bank Ltd v PeakeN/AYesRe Morris, Lloyds Bank Ltd v Peake [1970] 1 All ER 1057United KingdomCited for the principle that the court must be satisfied that the testatrix knew and approved of the contents of the Will at the time she signed it.
In re Stott, DecdN/AYesIn re Stott, Decd [1980] 1 WLR 246United KingdomCited for the principle that the propounder must produce affirmative proof of the testator’s knowledge and approval so as to satisfy the legal burden of proof when the circumstances surrounding a Will are suspicious.
Fulton v AndrewN/AYesFulton v Andrew (1875) 7 H.L. 448United KingdomCited for the principle that if a will is read over to the testator, this must be done in a proper way so that the testator hears and understands what is read.
Chow Siu Po v Wong Ming FongHong Kong High CourtYesChow Siu Po v Wong Ming Fong 2003 HKCU Lexis 117Hong KongCited for the principle that the actions and motives of the propounder may also have an impact on her credibility.
Browne v DunnN/AYesBrowne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67N/ACited for the principle that if evidence is unchallenged, it would stand and therefore be accepted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Mental Capacity Act 2005United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Testamentary capacity
  • Undue influence
  • Knowledge and approval
  • 1989 Will
  • 1996 Will
  • Power of Attorney
  • Dementia
  • Alzheimer's disease
  • Committee of estate
  • Interveners
  • Beneficiary
  • Executor
  • Trustee

15.2 Keywords

  • Will
  • Testamentary Capacity
  • Undue Influence
  • Probate
  • Singapore
  • Succession
  • Estate

16. Subjects

  • Wills and Succession
  • Probate
  • Mental Capacity

17. Areas of Law

  • Succession
  • Wills
  • Probate Law