Ng Bee Keong v Ng Choon Huay: Testamentary Capacity and Validity of Wills
In Ng Bee Keong v Ng Choon Huay, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over two wills executed by Ng Ching Khye. The plaintiff, Ng Bee Keong, the testator's nephew, sought to uphold the second will, which named him as the sole executor and beneficiary. The defendants, Ng Choon Huay and Eng Tet Hwa, challenged the testator's testamentary capacity and knowledge of the will's contents. The court, presided over by Andrew Ang J, found that the testator possessed the requisite testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the contents of the second will, ultimately allowing the plaintiff's claim and upholding the second will.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; Second Will upheld.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case concerning the testamentary capacity of the testator and the validity of two wills. The court upheld the second will.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Bee Keong | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Allowed | Won | |
| Ng Choon Huay | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Eng Tet Hwa | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Kim Hong | Defendant | Individual | Withdrew from suit | Withdrawn |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The testator executed two wills, one on 1 April 2009 and another on 14 May 2009.
- The first will appointed the plaintiff as the sole executor and beneficiary.
- The second will contained identical terms but excluded the testator's wife.
- The testator passed away on 31 May 2009 after battling cancer.
- Caveats against probate were filed by the testator's sister and brother.
- The testator treated himself as single or divorced and had no children.
- The testator's assets included an apartment, a shophouse, shares, bank accounts, insurance policies, and a car.
5. Formal Citations
- Ng Bee Keong v Ng Choon Huay and others, Suit No 367 of 2011, [2013] SGHC 107
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First Will executed | |
| Second Will executed | |
| Testator passed away | |
| Caveats against probate filed by Ng Choon Huay and Eng Cheng Hock | |
| Plaintiff filed Probate No 192 of 2009 of the Second Will | |
| Lim Kim Hong filed a caveat | |
| Eng Tet Hwa filed a caveat against probate | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Testamentary Capacity
- Outcome: The court found that the testator possessed the requisite testamentary capacity at the time of executing the Second Will.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Understanding the nature of the act
- Knowledge of the extent of property
- Knowledge of beneficiaries and their claims
- Freedom from abnormal state of mind
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 4 SLR 373
- (1870) LR 5 QB 549
- [2009] 3 SLR(R) 631
- Knowledge and Approval of Will Contents
- Outcome: The court found that the testator knew and approved of the contents of the Second Will.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Suspicious circumstances
- Affirmative evidence of knowledge and approval
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 166
- (1838) 2 Moo PC 480
- Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of undue influence that overpowered the testator's free will.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 4 SLR 93
- [1920] AC 349
8. Remedies Sought
- Probate of Will
- Declaration of Validity of Will
9. Cause of Actions
- Probate Dispute
- Challenge to Validity of Will
10. Practice Areas
- Estate Litigation
- Probate
- Wills and Trusts
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 373 | Singapore | Endorsed the essential elements of testamentary capacity as restated in George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George. |
| George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George | N/A | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 631 | Singapore | Restated the essential elements of testamentary capacity. |
| Banks v Goodfellow | N/A | Yes | (1870) LR 5 QB 549 | N/A | Laid down the essential elements of testamentary capacity. |
| Buckenham v Dickenson | N/A | No | [2000] WTLR 1083 | N/A | Cited regarding probate refusal based on lack of knowledge and approval. |
| Re Rowinska, Wyniczenko v Plucinska-Surowka | N/A | No | [2006] WTLR 487 | N/A | Cited regarding probate refusal based on lack of knowledge and approval. |
| Hoff v Atherton | N/A | Yes | [2003] EWCA Civ 1554 | N/A | Cited regarding the degree of detail a testator must understand about the nature of the act. |
| Robin Sharp and Anor v Grace Collin Adam and Ors | English High Court | Yes | [2005] EWHC 1806 | England and Wales | Endorsed the proposition in Minns regarding the testator's understanding of the extent of his property. |
| Susan Minns v Venetia Jane Foster | N/A | Yes | [2002] WL 31914915 | N/A | Proposition that the question is not whether a person actually knows the nature and extent of his estate, but whether he has the mental capacity to be able to do so. |
| Boughton and Anor v Knight and Ors | N/A | Yes | (1873) LR 3P&D 64 | N/A | Explained that the testator must have a memory to recall the several persons who may be fitting objects of the testator’s bounty. |
| Charles Harwood v Maria Baker | N/A | Yes | (1840) 3 Moo PC 282 | N/A | Concerned a will, executed by the testator on his deathbed, which excluded his near relations in favour of his wife. |
| Battan Singh and Ors v Amirchand and Ors | N/A | Yes | [1948] AC 161 | N/A | A testator may have a clear apprehension of the meaning of a draft will submitted to him and may approve of it, and yet if he was at the time through infirmity or disease so deficient in memory that he was oblivious of the claims of his relations, and if that forgetfulness was an inducing cause of choosing strangers to be his legatees, the will is invalid. |
| Dew v Clark | N/A | Yes | (1826) 3 Add 79 | N/A | A testator suffers from a delusion where he holds a belief on any subject which no rational person could hold and which cannot be permanently eradicated from his mind by reasoning with him |
| Fuller v Strum | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 1097 | N/A | The court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the nature and contents of the will do truly represent the testator’s intention. |
| Barry v Butlin | N/A | Yes | (1838) 2 Moo PC 480 | N/A | If a party writes or prepares a Will, under which he takes a benefit, that is a circumstance that ought generally to excite the suspicion of the Court. |
| R Mahendran v R Arumuganathan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 166 | Singapore | Summarized the applicable principles regarding knowledge and approval of the contents of a will. |
| W Scott Fulton and Ors v Charles Batty Andrew and Anor | N/A | Yes | (1874–1875) LR 7 HL 448 | N/A | The suspicious circumstances considered are circumstances “attending, or at least relevant to, the preparation and execution of the will itself”. |
| In the Estate of Lavinia Musgrove | N/A | Yes | [1927] 1 P 264 | N/A | Although the circumstances to be considered would generally comprise contemporaneous events, they might also include events subsequent to the execution of the will where they have a direct bearing on the question whether the testator knew and approved of its contents at the time of execution. |
| Cattermole v Prisk | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 FLR 693 | N/A | Despite the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, the testator knew and approved of the will because she alone had given instructions for it without the aid of notes and had spoken about the terms to her banker. |
| Ip Wai Hung v Yip Man Chiu | N/A | Yes | [2007] HKCU 2108 | N/A | Relevant or “suspicious” circumstances are pointers. They are not the end in themselves. For the court’s ultimate task is to see whether the court’s “suspicion” can be removed, i.e. the suspicion that the testator did not really know or approve of the contents of the will. |
| Rajaratnam Kumar v Estate of Rajaratnam Saravana Muthu (deceased) and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 93 | Singapore | Undue influence may not be presumed. |
| Craig v Lamoureux | N/A | Yes | [1920] AC 349 | N/A | Some influence, albeit not to the level of coercion overpowering the volition of the testator, is permissible. |
| Biggins v Biggins | N/A | Yes | [2000] All ER(D) 92 | N/A | Some influence, albeit not to the level of coercion overpowering the volition of the testator, is permissible. |
| Low Ah Cheow v Ng Hock Guan | Court of Appeal | No | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1079 | Singapore | The way in which the will was drafted to appoint the respondent the sole trustee and beneficiary of the estate gave rise to several legal difficulties and rendered the intention of the testator ambiguous. |
| Soh Eng Beng (as executor and trustee of the Estate of Soh Kim Poo, deceased) v Soh Eng Koon | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 257 | Singapore | Belinda Ang J applied at [14] the canon of construction “falsa demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat” to the interpretation of a will, albeit in a different context. The principle provides that a false description does not vitiate when there is no doubt as to the subject matter. |
| Syed Ali Redha Alsagoff v Syed Salim Alhadad bin Syed Ahmad Alhadad | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 470 | Singapore | It is in fact trite law that an executor would stand in the position of a trustee in relation to the residuary estate |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Testamentary capacity
- Knowledge and approval
- Undue influence
- Will
- Executor
- Beneficiary
- Caveat
- Probate
- Hokkien
- Kuasa
- Trustee
15.2 Keywords
- Will
- Probate
- Testamentary Capacity
- Singapore
- Estate
- Beneficiary
- Executor
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Wills
- Probate
- Estate Law
- Testamentary Capacity