Leow Li Yoon v Liu Jiu Chang: Validity of CPF Nomination & Mental Capacity
In Leow Li Yoon v Liu Jiu Chang, the High Court of Singapore addressed the validity of a Central Provident Fund (CPF) nomination. Mdm Leow Li Yoon, the appellant, challenged the nomination made by her deceased husband, Mr. Saw Eng Soon, in favor of Ms. Liu Jiu Chang, the respondent. The court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah JC, allowed the appeal, setting aside the CPF nomination due to doubts regarding Mr. Saw's mental capacity at the time of nomination. The court ordered that the CPF monies be distributed according to the Intestate Succession Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case regarding the validity of a CPF nomination. The court set aside the nomination due to doubts about the deceased's mental capacity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leow Li Yoon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Liu Jiu Chang | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ramesh s/o Varathappan | M Rama Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Appellant was married to Mr Saw Eng Soon in 1970.
- Divorce proceedings commenced in 2012, interim judgment granted in February 2013.
- Mr Saw nominated the Respondent as his sole beneficiary in a CPF nomination form dated 31 October 2011.
- Mr Saw passed away on 1 June 2013.
- Mr Saw had a pre-existing relationship with the Respondent for about a year before he executed the CPF Nomination Form.
- Mr Saw started consulting physicians concerning his mental health in December 2011.
- Mr Saw was diagnosed with reactive depression and started on antidepressant and anxiolytic medication.
5. Formal Citations
- Leow Li Yoon v Liu Jiu Chang, HC/ Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 7 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 290
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant married Mr Saw Eng Soon | |
| Appellant commenced divorce proceedings | |
| Interim judgment granted in divorce proceedings | |
| Mr Saw drove the Respondent to the airport | |
| Mr Saw passed away | |
| Interim injunction granted | |
| Substantive matter heard | |
| DJ delivered his judgment dismissing the Appellant’s application | |
| DJ heard the stay of execution application | |
| DJ heard and dismissed the application for leave to appeal | |
| High Court granted the Appellant an unconditional interim stay of the DJ’s orders | |
| Hearing of the appeal was fixed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Brief summary of decision given to parties |
7. Legal Issues
- Mental Capacity
- Outcome: The court found that there was a real possibility that Mr. Saw's depression might have left him functionally incapable of making a decision in relation to the CPF nomination at the material time.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Impairment of brain or mind function
- Functional inability to make a decision
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 1 SLR 549
- [2015] 4 SLR 81
- Validity of CPF Nomination
- Outcome: The court set aside the CPF Nomination Form.
- Category: Substantive
- Testamentary Capacity
- Outcome: The court applied the rules on the allocation of burden of proof in the context of a dispute concerning the testamentary capacity of a testator.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 4 SLR 373
- [2013] EWHC 4097 (Ch)
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction to restrain the CPF Board from paying the Respondent the CPF Monies
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration that CPF Nomination Form is null and void
- Declaration that CPF Monies are part of Mr Saw’s estate
10. Practice Areas
- Estate Planning
- Wills and Probate
- Trusts
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the rules on the allocation of burden of proof in the context of a dispute concerning the testamentary capacity of a testator. |
| Wong Meng Cheong and another v Ling Ai Wah and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 549 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of mental capacity and the invalidation of property transfer due to lack of mental capacity. |
| Re BKR | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 81 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the Mental Capacity Act test and stressing the causal connection between mental impairment and inability to make decisions. |
| Vegetarian Society and another v Scott | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2013] EWHC 4097 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of testamentary freedom and the requirement of capacity when exercising it. |
| Catling and others v Catling and another | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2014] EWHC 180 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited for the objector having to raise a “real doubt” as to capacity. |
| George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 631 | Singapore | Cited for the rationality of the will is determined with regard to its terms and the identities of the beneficiaries. |
| Fuller v Strum | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 1097 | England and Wales | Cited for the evidential challenges which are brought about by the fact that the protagonist, the testator, is no longer around to give evidence. |
| Gill v Woodall | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] EWCA Civ 1430 | England and Wales | Cited for the general principle of testamentary freedom. |
| Hawes v Burges | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] EWCA Civ 94 | England and Wales | Cited for the general principle of testamentary freedom. |
| How Yew Hock (Executor of the Estate of Yee Sow Thoo, Deceased) v Lembaga Kumpulan Wan Simpanan Pekerja | Federal Court | Yes | [1996] 2 MLJ 474 | Malaysia | Cited for holding that a nomination under s 20(b) of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1951 (Malaysia) had testamentary characteristics. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Central Provident Fund
- CPF Nomination
- Mental Capacity
- Testamentary Capacity
- Reactive Depression
- Intestate Succession Act
15.2 Keywords
- CPF nomination
- mental capacity
- testamentary capacity
- intestate succession
- reactive depression
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| CPF Nomination | 90 |
| Mental Capacity Law | 85 |
| Testamentary Capacity | 80 |
| Succession Law | 70 |
| Wills and Probate | 70 |
| Intestate succession | 60 |
| Family Law | 40 |
| Trust Law | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
| Corporate Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Succession
- Mental Capacity
- Central Provident Fund