Yeo Henry v Yeo Charles: Testamentary Capacity & Succession of Ng Lay Hua's Estate

In Yeo Henry @ Yeo Wee Heng v Yeo Charles and others, the High Court of Singapore heard a case concerning the testamentary capacity of the late Mdm Ng Lay Hua. The plaintiff, Yeo Henry, sought to validate the 2012 will, while the defendants, Yeo Charles, Yeo Yuan-Han John, and Yeo Yuan-Yin Evangeline, challenged the 2008, 2009, and 2012 wills, claiming Mdm Ng lacked testamentary capacity. The court, presided over by Senior Judge Andrew Ang, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, pronouncing the 2012 will valid and dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Judgment on testamentary capacity regarding the will of Mdm Ng Lay Hua. Court pronounces in favor of the 2012 will, dismissing counterclaim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Yeo Henry @ Yeo Wee HengPlaintiff, Defendant-in-CounterclaimIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Yeo CharlesDefendantIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost
Yeo Yuan-Han JohnDefendant, Plaintiff-in-CounterclaimIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost
Yeo Yuan-Yin EvangelineDefendant, Plaintiff-in-CounterclaimIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Deborah BarkerKhattarWong LLP
Gopalan RamanKhattarWong LLP
Priscilla Shen PeishiKhattarWong LLP
Siraj OmarPremier Law LLC
Premalatha SilwarajuPremier Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mdm Ng executed several wills, including those in 2008, 2009, and 2012, which are disputed.
  2. The defendants challenged the 2008, 2009, and 2012 wills, alleging Mdm Ng lacked testamentary capacity.
  3. Mdm Ng was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2004 and treated for depression from 2006 until her death.
  4. The 2009 and 2012 wills primarily benefited the plaintiff, Henry, and Wee Tsan, excluding Charles and his children.
  5. Mdm Ng expressed disappointment with John for marrying someone not of the Christian faith.
  6. Medical experts provided conflicting opinions on whether Mdm Ng's depression affected her testamentary capacity.
  7. Pauline Ang, the solicitor who prepared the wills, testified that Mdm Ng was mentally capable and coherent.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yeo Henry (executor and trustee of theestate of Ng Lay Hua, deceased)vYeo Charles and others, Suit No 967 of 2013, [2016] SGHC220

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Yeo Chee Kiat, Mdm Ng's husband, died
Mdm Ng provided a loan to Wee Yong to purchase an apartment in Sweden
Mdm Ng moved into 64 Sian Tuan Avenue
Mdm Ng executed the 2002 Will
Mdm Ng was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
Mdm Ng fell in the bathroom at home
Henry brought Mdm Ng to Mount Elizabeth Hospital
Mdm Ng was transferred to the National University Hospital
Mdm Ng executed a Power of Attorney in Henry’s favour
Mdm Ng was discharged from the National University Hospital
Mdm Ng was brought to see Associate Professor Pang Weng Sun
Mdm Ng executed the 2008 Will
Mdm Ng executed the 2009 Will
John married his betrothed
Mdm Ng executed another Power of Attorney appointing Henry
Mdm Ng executed a Lasting Power of Attorney
Mdm Ng executed the 2012 Will
Mdm Ng died
Trial began
Trial concluded
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Testamentary Capacity
    • Outcome: The court found that Mdm Ng possessed the requisite testamentary capacity when she executed the Wills.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Soundness of mind
      • Understanding the nature of the act
      • Knowledge of the extent of property
      • Appreciation of claims to property
      • Freedom from abnormal state of mind
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 1 SLR 595
      • (1870) LR 5 QB 549
      • [2009] 3 SLR(R) 631

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Pronouncement against the 2012 Will
  2. Declaration that the 2009 and 2008 Wills were void and invalid
  3. Pronouncement in favour of the 2002 Will
  4. Grant of Probate of the 2012 Will

9. Cause of Actions

  • Challenge to Testamentary Capacity
  • Propounding a Will

10. Practice Areas

  • Probate Litigation
  • Estate Planning

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Leow Li Yoon v Liu Jiu ChangHigh CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 595SingaporeCited to reiterate the principle of testamentary freedom, subject to the testator having capacity.
The Vegetarian Society and another v ScottEWHCYes[2013] EWHC 4097England and WalesCited to support the principle of testamentary freedom, allowing a person to leave assets as they see fit.
Gill v WoodallEWCAYes[2010] EWCA Civ 1430England and WalesCited to support the principle of testamentary freedom.
Hawes and BurgesEWCAYes[2013] EWCA Civ 94England and WalesCited to support the principle of testamentary freedom.
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin CarolineHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 373SingaporeCited for the requirements for a valid will: testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval of contents, and freedom from undue influence or fraud.
Ng Bee Keong v Ng Choon HuayHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 107SingaporeCited for the requirements for a valid will: testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval of contents, and freedom from undue influence or fraud.
Banks v GoodfellowQueen's BenchYes(1870) LR 5 QB 549EnglandCited as the locus classicus on the essential elements of testamentary capacity.
George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob GeorgeHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 631SingaporeCited for the restatement of the essential elements of testamentary capacity from Banks v Goodfellow.
Blackman v ManUnknownNo[2008] WTLR 389UnknownCited to caution against placing too much reliance on the evidence of medical experts who did not have the opportunity of seeing the deceased.
Burgess v HawesEWCANo[2013] EWCA Civ 74England and WalesCited to caution against placing too much reliance on the evidence of medical experts who did not have the opportunity of seeing the deceased.
Burgess v HawesEWCANo[2013] WTLR 453England and WalesCited to caution against placing too much reliance on the evidence of medical experts who did not have the opportunity of seeing the deceased.
Simon v ByfordEWCAYes[2014] EWCA Civ 280England and WalesCited to show that capacity depends on the potential to understand and is not to be equated with a test of memory.
Robin Sharp and another v Grace Collin Adam and othersHigh CourtYes[2005] EWHC 1806England and WalesCited to support the proposition that the question is not whether a person actually knows the nature and extent of his estate, but whether he has the capacity to be able to do so.
Susan Minns v Venetia Jane FosterUnknownYes[2002] WL 31914915UnknownCited to support the proposition that the question is not whether a person actually knows the nature and extent of his estate, but whether he has the capacity to be able to do so.
Hoff and others v AthertonEWCAYes[2004] EWCA Civ 1554England and WalesCited to show that if there is evidence of actual understanding, then that would prove the requisite capacity, but there will often be no such evidence, and the court must then look at all the evidence to see what inferences can be drawn as to capacity.
Hoff and others v AthertonEWCAYes[2005] WTLR 89England and WalesCited to show that if there is evidence of actual understanding, then that would prove the requisite capacity, but there will often be no such evidence, and the court must then look at all the evidence to see what inferences can be drawn as to capacity.
In re Key, decdUnknownNo[2010] WLR 2020UnknownCited to support the argument that mental disorders that impact on a testator’s decision-making capabilities rather than his ability to comprehend his actions may also be sufficient to justify a conclusion that the testator lacked the requisite testamentary capacity.
Chiu Man Fu v Chiu Chung Kwan YingUnknownNo[2012] HKEC 128Hong KongCited as a case where the court considered whether a testator lacked testamentary capacity as a result of bereavement on the death of his ex-wife.
King v HudsonSupreme CourtNo[2009] NSWSC 1013New South WalesCited as a case where the court considered whether a testator, who suffered severe depression, had testamentary capacity to execute a will about two weeks before he committed suicide.
Schrader v SchraderEWHCNo[2013] EWHC 466 (Ch)England and WalesCited to support the argument that the absence of any express explanation for a change in testamentary disposition is not sufficient to call a testatrix’s testamentary capacity into question.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

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

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Testamentary capacity
  • Will
  • Executor
  • Beneficiary
  • Delirium
  • Depression
  • Undue influence
  • Probate
  • Lasting Power of Attorney
  • Power of Attorney

15.2 Keywords

  • Will
  • Testamentary Capacity
  • Singapore
  • Succession
  • Probate
  • Estate
  • Ng Lay Hua
  • Yeo Henry
  • Yeo Charles

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Testamentary Capacity99
Wills and Probate95
Succession Law90
Mental Disability70
Mental Capacity Law60
Intestacy20

16. Subjects

  • Wills
  • Estates
  • Mental Health
  • Probate