ULV v ULW: Revocation of Will & Testamentary Capacity Dispute

In ULV v ULW, before the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the appellant, ULV, appealed a decision regarding the validity of two wills executed by their mother, [T]. The respondent, ULW, propounded the 2004 will, while the appellant propounded the 2008 will. The primary legal issue was whether the 2008 will validly revoked the 2004 will. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that it had not been proven that [T] knew and approved of the contents of the 2008 will.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal over validity of 2008 will revoking 2004 will. The court found the testatrix did not know and approve the contents of the 2008 will.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ULVAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
ULWRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Puay BoonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Siew TiongLawHub LLC
Lee Kang LinLawHub LLC
Tay Choon Leng JohnJohn Tay & Co
Conrad De SouzaJohn Tay & Co

4. Facts

  1. The testatrix executed two wills, one in 2004 and another in 2008.
  2. The 2004 Will divided the estate among her children and a granddaughter, with the respondent receiving a larger share.
  3. The 2008 Will made the appellant the sole beneficiary, contingent on distributing $130,000 to other beneficiaries.
  4. The appellant and his family moved in with the testatrix in 2008, and their relationship deteriorated.
  5. The testatrix expressed hostility towards the appellant and made attempts to prevent him from acquiring the Flat.
  6. The testatrix visited HDB to ensure the Flat was still under her name.
  7. The testatrix did not keep the 2008 Will in her security box.

5. Formal Citations

  1. ULV v ULW, HCF/District Court Appeal No 16 of 2018, [2019] SGHCF 2

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Testatrix executed 2004 Will
Testatrix's husband passed away
Testatrix moved into the Flat
Appellant and his family joined Testatrix in the Flat
Testatrix executed 2008 Will
2011 Document signed by Testatrix
Testatrix passed away
Family met at [K]'s home, where the respondent produced the 2004 Will and the appellant produced the 2008 Will
Proceedings commenced
Minute Sheet Date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Revocation of Will
    • Outcome: The court found that the 2008 Will did not validly revoke the 2004 Will because the testatrix did not know and approve of its contents.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Testamentary Capacity
    • Outcome: The court found that the testatrix had testamentary capacity at the time of executing the 2008 Will.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Knowledge and Approval of Will Contents
    • Outcome: The court found that the testatrix did not know and approve of the contents of the 2008 Will.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Undue Influence
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no evidence to show that [T] was unduly influenced in this sense.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Illegality
    • Outcome: The court rejected the submission that the 2008 Will is void due to illegality.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Validity of Will
  2. Revocation of Will

9. Cause of Actions

  • Probate Dispute
  • Will Contest

10. Practice Areas

  • Wills and Estates
  • Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)High CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 373SingaporeCited for the elements required for a valid will: mental capacity, knowledge and approval of contents, and freedom from undue influence or fraud.
Banks v GoodfellowQueen's BenchYes(1870) LR 5 QB 549England and WalesCited for the essential requisites of testamentary capacity.
R Mahendran and another v R ArumuganathanHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 166SingaporeCited for the legal burden of propounding a will lies in every case upon the party propounding the will.
George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob GeorgeHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 631SingaporeCited for the indication of testamentary capacity is the rationality of the will, having regard to its terms and the identities of the beneficiaries.
Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee LengHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 405SingaporeCited for the principle that the presumption of knowledge and approval will not operate where there are circumstances attending or relating to the preparation and execution of the will which would raise a well-grounded suspicion that the will did not express the mind of the testator.
Barry v ButlinPrivy CouncilYes(1838) 2 Moo PC 480United KingdomCited for the principle that the court will typically look for evidence that the testamentary instrument was read over by, or to, the testator, or evidence that the testator gave instructions for the drafting of the will and that the will was drafted in accordance with those instructions.
Gill v WoodallCourt of AppealYes[2011] Ch 380England and WalesCited for the test for approval and knowledge is whether the testator understood (a) what was in the will when he signed it; and (b) what its effect would be.
Fuller v StrumCourt of AppealYes[2002] 1 WLR 1097England and WalesCited for the will must reflect the true intentions of the testator.
Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v Gan Yuok Chin & AnorHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 MLJ 97MalaysiaCited for the principle that mere bodily ill-health and imperfect memory are insufficient to vitiate testamentary capacity.
Low Ah Cheow and others v Ng Hock GuanCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 1079SingaporeCited for the warning that, where the construction of the terms of a will is contested, a failure on the drafting solicitor’s part to keep proper attendance notes and/or records may have adverse consequences.
Rajaratnam Kumar (alias Rajaratnam Vairamuthu) v Estate of Rajaratnam Saravana Muthu (deceased) and another and another suitHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 93SingaporeCited for the test for undue influence in the probate context.
Hall v HallProbate and Divorce CourtYes(1868) LR 1 P & D 481England and WalesCited for the principle that it must be shown that the testator was not merely persuaded but was pressured into losing his freedom of choice.
Tan Teck Khong and another (Committee of the estate of Pang Jong Wan, mentally disordered) v Tan Pian MengHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 490SingaporeCited for the principle that undue influence could be presumed where the plaintiff showed (a) the existence of a particular relationship which enabled one party to it to influence the decisions of the other (presumably the testator); and (b) the resulting transaction was clearly disadvantageous to the person subject to the influence.
Pelican Engineering Pte Ltd v Lim Wee ChuanHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 1145SingaporeCited for the presumption of undue influence, concerning a contract rather than a will.
Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 205SingaporeCited for the principle that undue influence cannot be presumed where a will is concerned and must be proved by the person alleging it.
BOK v BOL and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 316SingaporeIrrelevant as it did not concern a will but rather a deed of trust.
Kamla Lal Hiranand v Harilela Padma Hari and othersHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 145SingaporeNot relevant as the document was not valid as a will, it was void, and should not be given effect by the backdoor through the device of an implied declaration of trust.
ULV v ULWFamily CourtYes[2018] SGFC 44SingaporeDistrict Judge's decision being appealed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Will
  • Testamentary Capacity
  • Revocation
  • Undue Influence
  • Knowledge and Approval
  • Hokkien
  • Beneficiary
  • Testatrix
  • Security Box
  • Flat

15.2 Keywords

  • Will
  • Testamentary Capacity
  • Revocation
  • Undue Influence
  • Probate
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Wills and Probate90
Succession Law90
Revocation of Will80
Testamentary Capacity80
Contested Wills70
Wills70
Trust Law30

16. Subjects

  • Wills
  • Succession
  • Probate
  • Family Law