TDA v TCZ: Appeal Against Statutory Will Order Under Mental Capacity Act Based on Undue Influence Allegations

TDA appealed against the District Judge's decision in Originating Summons (Family) No 12 of 2015, which sanctioned a statutory will for P under the Mental Capacity Act. The plaintiff, TCZ, P's niece, sought the will due to concerns of undue influence by TDA, the main beneficiary of P's existing will. The High Court, Prakash J, dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural errors in the lower court's decision and upholding the sanction of the statutory will.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed with Costs

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a statutory will sanctioned under the Mental Capacity Act. The court upheld the decision, finding no procedural errors in determining undue influence.

1.7 Decision Date

11 April 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
P	Other	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
TDA	Appellant, Defendant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Liow Wang Wu, Joseph of Straits Law Practice LLC
TCZ	Respondent, Plaintiff	Individual	Judgment upheld	Won	Lee Weiming Andrew of Selvam LLC Ramachandra Doraisamy Raghunath of Selvam LLC
TDB	Respondent, Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
TDC	Respondent, Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Liow Wang Wu, Joseph	Straits Law Practice LLC
Lee Weiming Andrew	Selvam LLC
Ramachandra Doraisamy Raghunath	Selvam LLC

4. Facts

The plaintiff sought a statutory will for P under the Mental Capacity Act.
The appellant was the main beneficiary of P's existing will made in December 2010.
The Judge granted the application and approved the making of a statutory will.
The appellant argued that the Judge was wrong to summarily determine that the appellant had exercised undue influence over P.
The appellant had been given the opportunity to consider whether he wished to apply to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses but decided not to take this course.
The appellant was directed to make the application by 31 March 2015 if, indeed, he intended to make any such application.

5. Formal Citations

TDA v TCZ and others, HCF/District Court AppealNo 62 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 63

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-01-14	Application filed
2015-01-28	First pre-trial conference held
2015-03-04	Third pre-trial conference held
2015-03-18	Last pre-trial conference held
2015-03-31	Application heard by Judge
2015-04-06	Judge granted the Application and approved the making of a statutory will
2016-02-15	Judgment reserved
2016-04-12	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found no procedural errors in the lower court's determination of undue influence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] SGFC 63
Procedural Fairness
- Outcome: The court held that there was no procedural unfairness in the hearing of the application.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Court Sanction to Make and Seal a Statutory Will

9. Cause of Actions

Application for Statutory Will
Allegation of Undue Influence

10. Practice Areas

Family Litigation
Civil Litigation
Mental Capacity Applications

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
TCZ v TDA, TDB and TDC	Family Court	Yes	[2015] SGFC 63	Singapore	Cited as the grounds of decision for the original application being appealed.
Re BKR	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 81	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court hearing MCA proceedings plays a markedly different role from a court hearing an ordinary civil matter.
Tay Beng Chuan v Official Receiver and Liquidator of Kie Hock Shipping (1971) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1987] SLR(R) 123	Singapore	Cited regarding the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal would interfere with the discretionary decision of the judge in the conduct of the business in his own court.
Evans v Bartlam	House of Lords	Yes	[1937] AC 473	England and Wales	Cited as the classic case on appellate interference with a first instance court’s exercise of discretion.
Kamla Lal Hiranand v Lal Hiranand	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 198	Singapore	Cited for the principle that duress and undue influence are hardly matters for a summons-in-chambers hearing.
Woon Brothers Investments Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 461	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 777	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is usually more appropriate to proceed by writ in cases involving allegations of fraud.
Re Deadman	English High Court	Yes	[1971] 1 WLR 426	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a case ought to be continued as if the action had originally been commenced by writ when the action would raise disputed questions of fact.
Cheong Kim Hock v Lin Securities (Pte) (in liquidation)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 497	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it was not inappropriate for the action there to have been commenced by originating summons and to have not been converted to a writ action, despite the fact that undue influence was central to the dispute, because the facts relied on as establishing undue influence were not in dispute and could therefore be disposed of in the originating summons.
Rainforest Trading Ltd and another v State Bank of India Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 713	Singapore	Cited for the principle that allegations of fraud must be accompanied by the existence of at least a credible matrix of facts and must be relevant to the dispute at hand.
Tan Sock Hian v Eng Liat Kiang	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 730	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in the case of an application to cross-examine a witness without conversion to a writ action, it is necessary for the party seeking cross-examination to support their application with contrary affidavit evidence showing that an issue of fact arose.
LS Investment Pte Ltd v Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 369	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party can lose the ability to ask the court to order a conversion to a writ action if they elected to forego the opportunity to present its full case.
Haco Far East Pte Ltd v Ong Heh Lai Francis	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 959	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party can lose the ability to ask the court to order a conversion to a writ action if they persisted in its stand that its commencement of the action by way of an OS was the appropriate process.
Drydocks World LLC (formerly known as Dubai Drydocks World LLC) v Tan Boy Tee	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 248	Singapore	Cited as an example of an application for conversion to a writ action taken out before the main hearing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014)
Rule 512 of the Family Justice Rules 2014
Rule 590 of the Family Justice Rules 2014
Rule 575 of the Family Justice Rules 2014

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A)	Singapore
Section 23(1)(i) of the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Statutory Will
Mental Capacity Act
Undue Influence
Originating Summons
Pre-Trial Conference
Cross-Examination
Writ Action

15.2 Keywords

Mental Capacity Act
Statutory Will
Undue Influence
Singapore
Family Law
Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Undue Influence	90
Mental Capacity Law	80
Testamentary Capacity	75
Civil Practice	70
Appellate Practice	60
Wills and Probate	50

16. Subjects

Mental Capacity
Wills and Estates
Civil Procedure