Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng: Testamentary Capacity & Validity of Will

In Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the validity of the Testator's August 2012 Will. The respondents had initially applied for probate in respect of an earlier will of the Testator dated 18 December 2010. The appellant sought to prove the August 2012 Will was valid. The High Court found the August 2012 Will invalid. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Testator knew and approved of the contents of the August 2012 Will.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

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 validity of a will. The court allowed the appeal, finding the testator knew and approved the will's contents, reversing the lower court's decision.

1.7 Decision Date

19 April 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lian Kok Hong	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Gopalan Raman of KhattarWong LLP Ng Junyi of KhattarWong LLP
Lian Bee Leng	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Leo Cheng Suan of Infinitus Law Corporation Teh Ee-Von of Infinitus Law Corporation
Wee Hui Ying	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Leo Cheng Suan of Infinitus Law Corporation Teh Ee-Von of Infinitus Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Chao Hick Tin	Judge of Appeal	No
Chan Sek Keong	Senior Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Gopalan Raman	KhattarWong LLP
Ng Junyi	KhattarWong LLP
Leo Cheng Suan	Infinitus Law Corporation
Teh Ee-Von	Infinitus Law Corporation

4. Facts

The Testator executed multiple wills and testamentary documents in the years leading up to his death.
The appellant, the Testator's son, played a role in the preparation of some of the wills.
The August 2012 Will was signed in the presence of two witnesses, but the signing was concealed from the Testator's wife.
The Testator had been hospitalised and was suffering from various ailments during the period he was making his wills.
The Judge found that the Testator had testamentary capacity when he signed the August 2012 Will.
The August 2012 Will was based on a draft that had been written earlier by the testator in his own hand.
Amendments to that draft had been explained to the testator.

5. Formal Citations

Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng and another, Civil Appeal No 155 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 24
Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng and another, , [2015] SGHC 205

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-01	Testator executed the 2004 Will.
2008-11-19	Testator signed the 19 November 2008 Will.
2008-11-24	Testator executed the 24 November 2008 Will.
2010-07-30	Testator executed the July 2010 Will.
2010-12-01	Testator signed a declaration purporting to revoke all prior wills.
2010-12-03	Testator executed the 3 December 2010 Will.
2010-12-18	Testator executed the 18 December 2010 Will.
2012-02-23	Testator drafted a handwritten will.
2012-05-20	Testator drafted a will.
2012-06-10	Testator signed the 10 June 2012 Will.
2012-06-30	Testator wrote and signed the 30 June 2012 Will.
2012-08-10	Testator signed the August 2012 Will.
2012-12-10	Testator passed away.
2012-12-12	Testator drafted a will.
2013-03-27	Meeting was arranged between the appellant and the first defendant at the office of Mr Warren Tan.
2013-05-21	Respondents applied to court for probate of the 18 December 2010 Will.
2013-08-02	Appellant filed a caveat against the respondents’ application for the grant of probate.
2013-12-16	Appellant filed a Citation against the respondents.
2014-03-17	Appellant commenced action to propound the August 2012 Will.
2015-01-01	Civil Appeal No 155 of 2015
2016-03-07	Court Hearing
2016-04-20	Grounds of Decision delivered

7. Legal Issues

Testamentary Capacity
- Outcome: The court found that the Testator had testamentary capacity when he signed the August 2012 Will.
- Category: Substantive
Validity of Will
- Outcome: The court found that the Testator knew and approved of the contents of the August 2012 Will.
- Category: Substantive
Suspicious Circumstances
- Outcome: The court found that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the August 2012 Will, but that the appellant had discharged his burden of proving that the Testator knew and approved of the contents of the will.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Grant of Probate
Declaration that the 18 December 2010 Will is the last will of the Testator

9. Cause of Actions

Probate of Will
Declaration of Validity of Will

10. Practice Areas

Probate
Estate Planning
Wills and Trusts

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 205	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from.
George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 631	Singapore	Cited for legal principles applicable to testamentary capacity.
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for legal principles applicable to testamentary capacity and suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a will.
Banks v Goodfellow	Queen's Bench	Yes	(1870) LR 5 QB 549	England and Wales	Cited for legal principles applicable to testamentary capacity.
Biggins v Biggins	Unknown	Yes	[2000] All ER(D) 92	England and Wales	Cited for legal principles applicable to testamentary capacity.
R Mahendran and another v R Arumuganathan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 166	Singapore	Cited for the principle that only circumstances related to the preparation and execution of a will can be considered as suspicious circumstances.
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	Cited for the principle that circumstances to be considered include only those relevant to the preparation and execution of the will itself.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 331	Singapore	Cited for the principle that respondents cannot raise issues on which they have not filed cross-appeals.
Chiam Heng Hsien (on his own behalf and as partner of Mitre Hotel Proprietors) v Chiam Heng Chow (executor of the estate of Chiam Toh Say, deceased) and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 180	Singapore	Cited for the principle that respondents cannot raise issues on which they have not filed cross-appeals.
In the Estate of Musgrove	Probate Division	Yes	[1927] P 264	England and Wales	Cited regarding the relevance of events subsequent to the execution of a will.
Barry v Butlin	Privy Council	Yes	[1838] 2 Moo PCC 480	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the evidence of the deceased’s knowledge of the will.
Fuller v Strum	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 1 WLR 1097	England and Wales	Cited regarding the standard of proof required to show that the testator knew and/or approved of the contents of a will.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 57 r 9A(5) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Wills Act (Cap 352, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Testamentary Capacity
Suspicious Circumstances
Knowledge and Approval
Undue Influence
Will
Executor
Beneficiary
Probate
Testator

15.2 Keywords

Will
Testamentary Capacity
Probate
Singapore
Succession
Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Testamentary Capacity	98
Wills and Probate	95
Succession Law	90
Evidence	40
Trust Law	30
Civil Procedure	20

16. Subjects

Wills
Probate
Succession