Re BKR: Mental Capacity Act Application, Appointment of Deputies, Undue Influence
The High Court heard appeals by AUT, AI, and BKR against a Senior District Judge's decision in Originating Summons (Family) No 71 of 2011, which granted AUR and CY's application to be appointed as deputies for their sister, BKR, under the Mental Capacity Act. The High Court, Lai Siu Chiu J presiding, allowed the appeals, finding that the Senior District Judge lacked jurisdiction and misapplied the principles of the MCA. The court held that the substantial dispute was not BKR's mental capacity but concerns over access and undue influence. The court set aside the original decision and orders for costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court appeal regarding a Mental Capacity Act application. The court found the Senior District Judge erred in finding BKR lacked capacity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUR | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| CY | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| AUT | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| AI | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| BKR | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- AUR and CY applied to be appointed as deputies for their sister, BKR, under the Mental Capacity Act.
- The Senior District Judge found that BKR lacked mental capacity and granted the application.
- AUT, AI, and BKR appealed the decision to the High Court.
- The High Court found that the substantial dispute was not BKR's mental capacity but concerns over access and undue influence.
- The High Court found that the Senior District Judge misapplied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the original decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Re BKR, , [2013] SGHC 201
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Summons (Family) No 71 of 2011 filed | |
| BKR gives evidence in court | |
| BKR gives evidence in court | |
| Registrar’s Appeals Subordinate Courts Nos 223 and 224 of 2012 | |
| Summons No 331 of 2013 filed | |
| Summons No 2535 of 2013 filed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the Court
- Outcome: The High Court found that the Senior District Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Application of the Mental Capacity Act
- Outcome: The High Court found that the Senior District Judge misapplied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act in determining BKR's mental capacity.
- Category: Substantive
- Appointment of Deputies and Scope of Powers
- Outcome: The High Court observed that the declarations of incapacity and the powers granted to the deputies were too wide.
- Category: Substantive
- Undue Influence
- Outcome: The High Court found that the Senior District Judge's findings of undue influence were irrelevant to the issue of BKR's mental capacity.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appointment as Deputies
- Authority to Manage Property and Affairs
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Appointment of Deputies under the Mental Capacity Act
10. Practice Areas
- Mental Capacity Applications
- Family Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of jurisdiction of a court. |
| Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah and other applications | N/A | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 348 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of jurisdiction of a court. |
| Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the jurisdiction of a court is primarily derived from statute. |
| Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King | N/A | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the jurisdiction of a court is primarily derived from statute. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1279 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the jurisdiction of a court is primarily derived from statute. |
| In re L (Vulnerable Adults with Capacity: Court’s Jurisdiction) (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [2012] 3 WLR 1439 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the Mental Capacity Act does not pertain to individuals who do not lack mental capacity as defined in the Act. |
| Re SA | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 FLR 867 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be invoked to protect vulnerable adults. |
| LBL v RYJ and another | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 FLR 1279 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the inherent jurisdiction supplements the protection afforded by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for those who are 'incapacitated' by external forces. |
| Re F | N/A | Yes | [2009] EWHC B30 (Fam) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the inability to make a decision refers to a defect or deficiency in normal powers of reasoning. |
| Richmond v Richmond | N/A | Yes | 111 LT 273 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the loss of immediate memory can disable a person from properly conducting their own affairs. |
| Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that no party would call an expert to testify against its own case. |
| In re S and another (Protected Persons) | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 WLR 1082 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that capacity is not a blunt all or nothing condition, but is more complex, and is to be treated as being issue-specific. |
| In re P (Statutory Will) | N/A | Yes | [2010] 2 WLR 253 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the test of incapacity is issue specific. |
| D Borough Council v B | N/A | Yes | [2011] 3 WLR 1257 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that in determining the mental capacity for sexual relations, the test was act-specific rather than partner-specific. |
| X City Council v MB | N/A | Yes | [2006] 2 FLR 968 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that questions of capacity are always issue-specific. |
| R v Cooper (Gary Anthony) | N/A | No | [2009] 1 WLR 1786 | England and Wales | Cited for the suggestion that, in certain cases, capacity could even be situation-specific. |
| Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co (Nos 1 and 2) | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 WLR 1511 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the test of mental capacity is issue-specific. |
| Sheffield City Council v E and another | N/A | Yes | [2005] 2 WLR 953 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that capacity to marry is not the same as capacity to look after oneself or one’s property. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mental Capacity Act
- Deputy
- Undue Influence
- Jurisdiction
- Functional Component
- Clinical Component
- Best Interests
- Issue-Specific Approach
15.2 Keywords
- Mental Capacity Act
- Deputy
- Undue Influence
- Jurisdiction
- Family Law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Mental Capacity Law | 95 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
| Family Law | 5 |
| Litigation | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Mental Capacity
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure