URF & URG v URH: Estate Dispute over Validity of 2008 Will, Undue Influence, and Testamentary Capacity

In URF and URG v URH, before the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Tan Puay Boon addressed appeals concerning the estate of [X]. The plaintiffs, URF and URG, sought probate of a 2008 will, while the defendant, URH, challenged its validity, claiming undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal against a bifurcation order, finding no jurisdiction over inter vivos claims. However, the court allowed in part the plaintiffs' appeal against a specific discovery order, limiting the discovery to documents pertaining to the year 2008.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Estate dispute involving claims of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity regarding a 2008 will. The court dismissed the appeal related to inter vivos claims due to jurisdictional issues.

1.7 Decision Date

7 January 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
URF	Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Gan Jhia Huei of Genesis Law Corporation Foo Hsiang Howe Roger of Genesis Law Corporation
URG	Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Gan Jhia Huei of Genesis Law Corporation Foo Hsiang Howe Roger of Genesis Law Corporation
URH	Defendant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Tay Wei Loong Julian of Lee & Lee Ong Hui Xian, Andrea of Lee & Lee

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Puay Boon	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Gan Jhia Huei	Genesis Law Corporation
Foo Hsiang Howe Roger	Genesis Law Corporation
Tay Wei Loong Julian	Lee & Lee
Ong Hui Xian, Andrea	Lee & Lee

4. Facts

The suit concerns the estate of [X], who passed away in 2017.
The first plaintiff was [X]’s personal assistant.
The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff’s sister.
The defendant is the only child of [X] and [X]’s wife, [Y].
On 25 April 2005, [X] and [Y] made two wills whose provisions mirror each other.
On 12 January 2007, [Y] passed away.
On 12 November 2008, [X] allegedly executed a will.
On 22 June 2017, the plaintiffs applied for a grant of probate of the 2008 Will.
On 29 June 2017, the defendant’s solicitors lodged a caveat on his behalf against the grant of probate.

5. Formal Citations

URF and another v URH, HCF/Suit No 6 of 2017 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 2 and 3 of 2018), [2019] SGHCF 1

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-04-25	[X] and [Y] made two wills whose provisions mirror each other.
2007-01-12	[Y] passed away.
2008-11-12	[X] allegedly executed a will.
2017-05-14	[X] passed away.
2017-06-22	Plaintiffs applied for a grant of probate of the 2008 Will.
2017-06-29	Defendant’s solicitors lodged a caveat on his behalf against the grant of probate.
2017-07-03	Plaintiffs filed a Warning to Caveator requiring the defendant to file an Appearance to Warning setting out his alleged interest in [X]’s estate.
2017-07-11	Defendant filed an Appearance in respect of the Warning to Caveator.
2017-08-31	Plaintiffs commenced this suit in the Family Division of the High Court.
2018-02-02	Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1) was dated.
2018-02-20	Reply and Defence to Counterclaim (Amendment No 1) was dated.
2018-04-13	Parties filed applications for bifurcation and specific discovery.
2018-07-20	Assistant Registrar granted the Bifurcation Application and the Specific Discovery Application in part.
2018-10-08	Hearing date.
2018-10-26	Hearing date.
2019-01-08	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction of the Family Division
- Outcome: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the inter vivos claims.
- Category: Jurisdictional
Validity of Will
- Outcome: The court did not make a final determination on the validity of the will, as the matter was bifurcated.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Undue influence
  - Testamentary capacity
Specific Discovery
- Outcome: The court ordered specific discovery of documents pertaining to the year 2008.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Grant of probate of the 2008 Will
Declaration that the 2008 Will is invalid
Declaration that the 2005 Will is proved in solemn form of law and a grant of probate of the 2005 Will
Order that the plaintiffs render an account of assets which they received from [X] or [X]’s estate from 2008
Declaration that the transfer of [X]’s properties and/or assets to the plaintiffs from 2008 be set aside
Declaration that the plaintiffs hold the properties and/or the assets and/or [X]’s estate as constructive trustees for the defendant

9. Cause of Actions

Grant of Probate
Undue Influence
Lack of Testamentary Capacity

10. Practice Areas

Family Litigation
Estate Litigation
Probate
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
UDA v UDB and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 1015	Singapore	Cited for pronouncements on the jurisdiction of the Family Division.
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	Unknown	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 258	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the jurisdiction of a court can only derive from statute.
EQ Capital Investments Ltd v Sunbreeze Group Investments Ltd and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHCR 15	Singapore	Cited for summarizing the law governing specific discovery.
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other applications	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 39	Singapore	Cited for principles governing specific discovery.
Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 69	Singapore	Cited for principles governing specific discovery.
The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 98	Singapore	Cited for principles governing specific discovery.
CIFG Special Assets Capital I Ltd (formerly known as Diamond Kendall Ltd) v Polimet Pte Ltd and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1382	Singapore	Cited for principles governing specific discovery.
Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 654	Singapore	Cited regarding the relevance of conduct subsequent to an event to the parties’ intentions, but distinguished on the facts.
Shephard v Cartwright	Unknown	Yes	[1955] AC 431	Unknown	Cited in Tan Yok Koon regarding subsequent evidence on the transferor’s intentions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Family Justice Rules 2014
Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Family Justice Act 2014	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
Interpretation Act	Singapore
Trustees Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Will
Probate
Testamentary capacity
Undue influence
Inter vivos transfers
Bifurcation
Specific discovery
Family Division
Jurisdiction
Caveat

15.2 Keywords

family justice
estate
will
probate
undue influence
testamentary capacity
jurisdiction
specific discovery

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Wills and Probate	90
Family Law	90
Undue Influence	75
Testamentary Capacity	75
Succession Law	60
Inter vivos	60
Evidence Law	50
Civil Procedure	40
Affidavits	30

16. Subjects

Family Law
Civil Procedure
Probate and Administration
Jurisdiction