George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George: Testamentary Capacity of Schizophrenic Testator

George Abraham Vadakathu appealed against the decision of the district judge in declaring the will of George George null and void. George George had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The High Court, Chan Sek Keong CJ, allowed the appeal, finding that George George had the requisite testamentary capacity to execute the will, and that the appellant had adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that George George lacked testamentary capacity.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the testamentary capacity of a testator diagnosed with schizophrenia. The court allowed the appeal, finding the testator had capacity.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
George Abraham VadakathuAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Jacob GeorgeRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prabhakaran NairOng Tan & Nair
Eugene ThuraisingamAllen & Gledhill LLP
Muralli RajaramAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. George George (GG) was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1957.
  2. GG executed a will on 6 December 1998, leaving his estate to his nephew and nieces.
  3. GG was treated for schizophrenia at Woodbridge Hospital, Adam Road Hospital, and the Institute of Mental Health.
  4. GG was employed by the Tanglin Club for 13 years.
  5. GG's brother, Jacob George, challenged the validity of the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity.
  6. GG disliked the Respondent and his wife, almost to the point of hating them.
  7. GG gave $39,000 to GVA’s younger daughter who was then studying in Victoria, Canada when she needed some money urgently.

5. Formal Citations

  1. George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George, DA 12/2008, [2009] SGHC 79
  2. George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George, , [2008] SGDC 114

6. Timeline

DateEvent
George George was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
George George was hospitalised in Woodbridge Hospital.
George George was treated by Dr Wong Yip Chong at Adam Road Hospital.
George George was employed by the Tanglin Club.
George George requested Selvadurai Gunaseelan to see his father, Mr Vadakathu Abraham George.
George George executed the will.
George George retired from the Tanglin Club at the age of 60.
George George's condition deteriorated.
Dr Wong reviewed George George’s condition and recommended hospitalisation.
George George was re-employed by the Tanglin Club until November 2001.
George George received treatment at the Institute of Mental Health.
George George died.
District Judge declared the will of George George null and void.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Testamentary Capacity
    • Outcome: The court held that the testator had testamentary capacity to execute his will.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Mental disability
      • Schizophrenia
    • Related Cases:
      • (1870) LR 5 QB 549

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the will is invalid

9. Cause of Actions

  • Challenge to validity of will

10. Practice Areas

  • Probate Litigation
  • Estate Planning

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob GeorgeDistrict CourtYes[2008] SGDC 114SingaporeThe decision of the district judge that was appealed against in the current judgment.
Banks v GoodfellowEnglish Court of AppealYes(1870) LR 5 QB 549England and WalesCited for the legal requisites of testamentary capacity.
In the Matter of the Estate of Eusoff Mohamed Salleh AngulliaStraits Settlements High CourtYes[1939] MLJ 100SingaporeCited for placing particular emphasis on the rationality of the will as evidence of testamentary capacity.
R Mahendran v R ArumuganathanCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 579SingaporeCited for the burden of proof of testamentary capacity.
Barry v ButlinUnknownYes(1838) 2 Moo 480UnknownCited for the principle that the legal burden of propounding a will lies upon the party propounding the will.
Ng So Kuen Connie v PPUnknownYes[2003] 3 SLR 178SingaporeCited for the principle that the court may place greater weight on factual witnesses.
Gunapathy Muniandy v Khoo JamesHigh CourtYes[2001] SGHC 165SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must decide the issues of fact and law, and not allow an expert to decide them.
Waring v. WaringUnknownYes(1848) 6 Moo PC 341UnknownCited as an example of a case where delusions influenced the testator's disposition of property.
Smith v TebbittUnknownYes(1867) LR 1 P&D 398UnknownCited as an example of a case where delusions influenced the testator's disposition of property.
Cartwright v CartwrightUnknownYes(1793) 1 Phill Ecc 90UnknownCited for the opinion that the rationality of the act done afforded an effectual test of the mental capacity of the party doing it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Testamentary capacity
  • Schizophrenia
  • Lucid interval
  • Remission
  • Undue influence
  • Mental disability
  • Medical evidence
  • Expert witness
  • Burden of proof

15.2 Keywords

  • Testamentary capacity
  • Schizophrenia
  • Will
  • Mental health
  • Singapore
  • Succession
  • Probate

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Testamentary Capacity95
Mental Disability90
Schizophrenia85
Succession Law80
Wills and Probate75
Trust Law30
Mental Health Law25

16. Subjects

  • Wills and Estates
  • Mental Health
  • Civil Litigation