Goh Yng Yng Karen v Goh Yong Chiang Kelvin: Mental Capacity & Undue Influence in Power of Attorney

In Goh Yng Yng Karen (executrix of the estate of Liew Khoon Fong, deceased) v Goh Yong Chiang Kelvin, the Singapore High Court addressed the validity of two powers of attorney granted by Mdm Liew Khoon Fong to her son, Kelvin Goh. Karen Goh, Mdm Liew's daughter, initiated the suit, arguing that Mdm Liew lacked the mental capacity to execute the POAs and that Kelvin had exerted undue influence. The court declared the POAs void, citing Mdm Liew's lack of mental capacity and undue influence by the defendant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Declaration that the Powers of Attorney are void.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding the validity of powers of attorney executed by an elderly woman, focusing on mental capacity and undue influence.

1.7 Decision Date

16 September 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Goh Yng Yng Karen (executrix of the estate of Liew Khoon Fong (alias Liew Fong), deceased)	Plaintiff	Individual	Declaration Granted	Won	Kang Kim Yang, Mary Leong Sut San, Ang Jian Xiang
Goh Yong Chiang Kelvin	Defendant	Individual	Declaration of Void Powers of Attorney	Lost	Tan Teck San Kelvin, Chng Hu Ping

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Ang Cheng Hock	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Kang Kim Yang	Templars Law LLC
Mary Leong Sut San	Templars Law LLC
Ang Jian Xiang	Templars Law LLC
Tan Teck San Kelvin	Drew & Napier LLC
Chng Hu Ping	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Mdm Liew executed two powers of attorney in favor of her son, Kelvin.
The first POA authorized Kelvin to sell Mdm Liew's house and pay the proceeds to her grandson.
The second POA authorized Kelvin to purchase a condominium in the joint names of Mdm Liew and her grandson.
Karen, Mdm Liew's daughter, challenged the validity of the POAs, alleging Mdm Liew lacked mental capacity.
Karen also alleged that Kelvin exercised undue influence over Mdm Liew.
Mdm Liew was diagnosed with moderate to severe dementia after the POAs were executed.
Mdm Liew had a close relationship with Karen, who held her Lasting Power of Attorney.

5. Formal Citations

Goh Yng Yng Karen (executrix of the estate of Liew Khoon Fong (alias Liew Fong), deceased) v Goh Yong Chiang Kelvin, Suit No 45 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 195

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1998-01-01	Mr. Goh passed away.
2006-01-01	Mdm Liew sold the Siglap Bank property.
2006-01-01	Mdm Liew moved to Melbourne, Australia.
2009-01-01	Mdm Liew moved back to Singapore.
2014-09-16	Lasting Power of Attorney registered.
2017-06-01	Karen noticed Mdm Liew behaving oddly.
2017-09-09	Mdm Liew saw neurologist, Dr. Ho King Hee.
2017-11-20	Mdm Liew executed the Powers of Attorney.
2017-11-22	Defendant granted an option to purchase the Namly property.
2017-12-03	Mdm Liew moved out of the Namly property.
2017-12-07	Option to purchase exercised.
2017-12-13	Karen discovered purchaser's caveat.
2017-12-15	Lasting Power of Attorney came into effect.
2017-12-16	Mdm Liew was hospitalised at Mount Elizabeth Hospital.
2018-03-01	Injunction preventing sale of Namly property refused.
2018-04-20	Mdm Liew admitted to Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
2018-10-01	Mdm Liew discharged from Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
2020-02-05	Trial began.
2020-02-26	Trial concluded.
2020-06-10	Mdm Liew passed away.
2020-07-09	Grant of Probate issued to Karen.
2020-07-14	Leave granted for Karen to continue proceedings.
2020-09-17	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Mental Capacity
- Outcome: The court found that Mdm Liew lacked the mental capacity to execute the Powers of Attorney.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Impairment of mind
  - Inability to understand information
  - Inability to retain information
  - Inability to use information
  - Inability to communicate decision
Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found that the Powers of Attorney were vitiated by reason of undue influence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Actual undue influence
  - Presumed undue influence
  - Relationship of trust and confidence
  - Transaction calling for explanation
  - Rebuttal of presumption

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the Powers of Attorney are null and void
Pre-judgment interest as damages
Punitive damages

9. Cause of Actions

Lack of Mental Capacity
Undue Influence

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Estate Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re BKR	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 81	Singapore	Cited for the test for capacity in section 4(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, having a functional and clinical component.
BUV v BUU and another and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 1041	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court's assessment as to mental capacity should be made holistically.
BOM v BOK and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 349	Singapore	Cited for the analytical framework for undue influence and the categorization of classes of undue influence.
Moh Tai Siang v Moh Tai Tong and another	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 280	Singapore	Cited for the principle that what amounts to a transaction that calls for an explanation is a fact-sensitive inquiry.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 773	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a transaction calls for an explanation where it cannot be reasonably accounted for on ordinary motives.
Allcard v Skinner	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1887) 36 Ch D 145	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a transaction calls for an explanation where it cannot be reasonably accounted for on ordinary motives.
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 the standard expected of solicitors in discharging their duties to their clients when preparing wills.
Low Ah Cheow and others v Ng Hock Guan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 1079	Singapore	Cited for the serious professional responsibilities involved in preparing a will and the need for solicitors to avoid conflicts of interest.
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Reliance National Asia Re Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 385	Singapore	Cited for the distinction between the power to grant interest on damages and interest as damages.
ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 918	Singapore	Cited for the principle that punitive damages may be awarded in tort where the defendant's conduct is outrageous.
UKM v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 3 SLR 874	Singapore	Cited for the role of public policy considerations in court decisions.
Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 750	Singapore	Cited for the interchangeable use of the terms 'exemplary damages' and 'punitive damages'.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed, R 5)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Power of Attorney
Mental Capacity
Undue Influence
Lasting Power of Attorney
Dementia
Joint Tenancy
Irrevocable
Executrix
Alzheimer's Disease
Lucid Interval

15.2 Keywords

Mental Capacity Act
Undue Influence
Power of Attorney
Dementia
Elderly Abuse
Singapore Law
Estate
Property

16. Subjects

Mental Capacity
Undue Influence
Powers of Attorney
Estate Planning

17. Areas of Law

Mental Capacity Law
Agency Law
Power of Attorney
Undue Influence