Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline: Validity of Will Dispute over Madam Goh's Estate

In Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the validity of a will made by Madam Goh Hun Keong. Muriel Chee, the appellant, challenged the High Court's decision that the 1996 will was invalid. The respondent, Caroline Chee, argued that Madam Goh lacked testamentary capacity and did not approve of the will's contents. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that Muriel had not proven that Madam Goh had testamentary capacity or understood the terms of the 1996 will.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the validity of a will. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the will invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity and knowledge.

1.7 Decision Date

3 August 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chee Mu Lin Muriel	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Ang Cheng Hock of Allen & Gledhill LLP Melanie Chng of Allen & Gledhill LLP Sundaresh Menon of Rajah & Tann LLP
Chee Ka Lin Caroline	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Giam Chin Toon of Wee Swee Teow & Co Wong Hur Yuin of Wee Swee Teow & Co
Chee Ping Chian Alexander	Interveners	Individual	Neutral	Neutral	Chew Kei-Jin of Tan Rajah & Cheah
Chee Man Lin Maureen	Interveners	Individual	Neutral	Neutral	Chew Kei-Jin of Tan Rajah & Cheah

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Sek Keong	Chief Justice	Yes
Andrew Ang	Judge	No
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ang Cheng Hock	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Melanie Chng	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Sundaresh Menon	Rajah & Tann LLP
Giam Chin Toon	Wee Swee Teow & Co
Wong Hur Yuin	Wee Swee Teow & Co
Chew Kei-Jin	Tan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

Mdm Goh made a will in 1989, leaving most of her estate to her daughter Caroline.
Mdm Goh sold a half-share of her Holland Road House to Caroline and her husband at a discounted price.
Mdm Goh was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson's disease and dementia in 1995.
Muriel arranged for a new will to be drafted in 1996, dividing the estate among other children.
Mdm Goh signed the 1996 will, but there were concerns about her mental capacity at the time.
Muriel did not attend the reading of the 1989 will but arranged a separate reading for the 1996 will.
Medical experts provided conflicting opinions on Mdm Goh's mental state in 1996.

5. Formal Citations

Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners), Civil Appeal No 147 of 2009, [2010] SGCA 27
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners), , [2009] SGHC 229

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1989-03-16	Mdm Goh executed the 1989 Will
1990-01-01	Dr Chee Siew Oon died
1994-06-25	Muriel wrote a letter to Alexander
1995-06-12	Mdm Goh sold a half-share in the Holland Road House to Caroline and Paul
1995-06-15	Mdm Goh acknowledged receipt of the remainder sum
1995-11-01	Prof KO Lee diagnosed Mdm Goh as suffering from an early onset of both Parkinson’s disease and dementia
1996-02-01	Caroline brought Mdm Goh to visit a psychiatrist, Prof Kua
1996-03-01	Prof Kua administered the Elderly Cognitive Assessment Questionnaire on Mdm Goh
1996-04-01	Mdm Goh underwent a computed tomography scan
1996-08-10	Mdm Goh fell in the driveway of the Holland Road House
1996-08-18	Muriel, Ms May Oh and Dr Goh King Hua met with Mdm Goh at the Holland Road House
1996-08-19	Muriel faxed two documents to MO containing instructions for the preparation of the 1996 Will
1996-08-19	Mdm Goh paid a brief visit to Prof KO Lee
1996-08-21	MO and Dr Goh witnessed the execution of the 1996 Will by Mdm Goh
1996-09-01	Prof Kua took Mdm Goh off Sertraline, Stilnox, Haloperidol and Tacrine
1996-09-01	Mdm Goh visited Dr Ong
1996-11-01	Muriel brought Mdm Goh to see another geriatrician, Dr Chan Kin Ming
1996-12-08	Mdm Goh signed an instrument granting Muriel a power of attorney over her affairs
1997-01-14	Mdm Goh revoked the 1996 POA
1999-01-22	Mdm Goh executed an instrument granting a power of attorney to Caroline
1999-03-02	Mdm Goh executed another power of attorney in favor of Muriel
2004-06-09	Mdm Goh died
2004-06-28	Mr Hin read the 1989 Will
2004-06-30	Muriel invited Alexander and Ping Swee to Greenleaf Place where the 1996 Will was read
2004-07-13	Caroline filed a Petition in Probate No 141 of 2004 for a grant of probate of the 1989 Will
2004-07-26	Probate was granted
2004-08-02	Muriel lodged a caveat, Caveat against Grant of Probate No 160 of 2004, against the sealing of the grant of probate to Caroline
2004-08-26	Caroline filed a Warning to Caveator
2004-09-07	Muriel entered an Appearance to Caveat
2007-04-12	Suit 238/07 was filed
2010-03-18	Appeal heard
2010-08-04	Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

Testamentary Capacity
- Outcome: The court found that Mdm Goh did not have testamentary capacity at the time of executing the 1996 Will.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Mental impairment
  - Understanding the nature of the act
  - Knowledge of property extent
  - Appreciation of beneficiaries' claims
- Related Cases:
  - (1870) LR 5 QB 549
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 631
Knowledge and Approval of Will Contents
- Outcome: The court found that Mdm Goh did not know or approve of the contents of the 1996 Will.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Suspicious circumstances
  - Understanding of will provisions
  - Influence in will preparation
- Related Cases:
  - (1838) 12 ER 1089
  - [1999] 2 SLR(R) 166

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration of Invalidity of Will
Probate of Prior Will

9. Cause of Actions

Challenge to Validity of Will
Lack of Testamentary Capacity
Lack of Knowledge and Approval

10. Practice Areas

Estate Litigation
Probate
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 229	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from, where the High Court declared the 1996 Will invalid.
Banks v Goodfellow	Queen's Bench	Yes	(1870) LR 5 QB 549	England and Wales	Leading authority on testamentary capacity, outlining the requirements for a valid will.
George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 631	Singapore	Restates the essential requisites of testamentary capacity as per Banks v Goodfellow.
Norris v Tuppen	Supreme Court of Victoria	Yes	[1999] VSC 228	Australia	Discusses the impact of dementia on testamentary capacity, noting that its presence does not automatically negate competency.
Cattermole v Prisk	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 FLR 693	England and Wales	Illustrates a case where a testatrix with early-stage dementia was found to have testamentary capacity due to her ability to communicate coherently and provide accurate information.
Barry v Butlin	N/A	Yes	(1838) 12 ER 1089	N/A	Establishes the principle that the presumption of knowledge and approval does not arise when suspicious circumstances surround the will's execution.
R Mahendran and another v R Arumuganathan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 166	Singapore	Reiterates the principle from Barry v Butlin regarding suspicious circumstances and the burden of proof.
Tan Teck Khong v Tan Pian Meng	N/A	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 490	Singapore	Reinforces the principle that the presumption of knowledge and approval does not arise when suspicious circumstances surround the will's execution.
W. Scott Fulton, Isabella D. Fulton and Margaret Fulton v Charles Batty Andrew and Thomas Wilson	House of Lords	Yes	(1874–1875) LR 7 HL 448	United Kingdom	Clarifies that the circumstances to be considered when determining suspicion are those relevant to the preparation and execution of the will.
In the Estate of Musgrove	N/A	Yes	[1927] P 264	N/A	States that circumstances to be considered may include events subsequent to the execution of the will.
Ip Wai Hung v Yip Man Chiu and others	Court of First Instance	Yes	[2007] HKCU 2108	Hong Kong	Evidence that a will was read and explained to a testator with the requisite mental capacity gave rise to the “natural and proper inference” that the testatrix understood and approved of the contents of the will before she signed it.
Fuller v Strum	N/A	Yes	[2002] 1 WLR 1097	N/A	The question is whether the court is satisfied that the contents do truly represent the testator’s testamentary intentions.
Low Ah Cheow and others v Ng Hock Guan	N/A	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 1079	Singapore	The preparation of a will involves serious professional responsibilities, which solicitors must uncompromisingly observe and discharge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Testamentary Capacity
Dementia
Undue Influence
Knowledge and Approval
Holland Road House
1996 Will
1989 Will
Power of Attorney
Medical Evidence
Suspicious Circumstances

15.2 Keywords

Will
Testamentary Capacity
Probate
Dementia
Singapore
Estate
Mental Capacity

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Testamentary Capacity	95
Wills and Probate	90
Succession Law	80
Will Validity	70
Evidence Law	60
Burden of proof	50
Undue Influence	40
Trust Law	30

16. Subjects

Wills
Probate
Estate Administration
Mental Health Law