UWF v UWH: Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence in Will Dispute
In UWF and another v UWH and another [2020] SGHCF 22, the Singapore High Court (Family Division) heard a claim by Plaintiffs UWF and UWG, seeking the revocation of the Grant of Probate to Defendants UWH and UWI, who are the executors of the Will of the deceased, Mother. The Plaintiffs contended that the Will was invalid due to Mother's lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the Defendants. The Defendants counterclaimed to uphold the Will's validity. The court, Tan Puay Boon JC, found that the Mother had testamentary capacity and was not unduly influenced, dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim and allowing the Defendants' counterclaim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Defendants
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning the validity of a will challenged for lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. Judgment for Defendants.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Puay Boon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Testator was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1978 and received treatment.
- Testator made a will on 29 May 2002, bequeathing unequal shares of her estate to her children.
- Testator lost mental capacity and deputies were appointed for her in 2012.
- Testator passed away on 27 November 2016.
- Plaintiffs, two of the testator's children, sought revocation of the Grant of Probate, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.
- Defendants, executors and beneficiaries of the will, disputed the allegations and sought to uphold the will's validity.
- The estate included a family property in the Tanjong Katong area and was substantial.
5. Formal Citations
- UWF and another v UWH and another, Suit No 2 of 2017, [2020] SGHCF 22
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Testator diagnosed with bipolar disorder | |
| Testator admitted to Adam Road Hospital | |
| Testator admitted to Institute of Mental Health | |
| Testator made unsuccessful Personal Protection Order application against Derek | |
| Testator used a changkol to smash the windows of Derek’s bedroom | |
| Derek made a Personal Protection Order application against Testator | |
| Father passed away | |
| Letter sent to Derek giving formal notice to vacate the Family Property | |
| Testator met with lawyer Mdm L to make a will | |
| Testator executed the Will | |
| Derek and his family moved out of the Family Property | |
| Testator hospitalised for lithium poisoning | |
| Dr Tan issued a medical report diagnosing Testator to be suffering from an unsoundness of mind arising from dementia | |
| Celine, Eric, Andrew and Bernard were appointed as Testator’s deputies | |
| Testator passed away | |
| Family meeting to formally read the Will | |
| Andrew and Bernard extracted the grant of probate of the Will | |
| Plaintiffs commenced HCF/S 2/2017 | |
| Trial began | |
| Plaintiffs’ application under Summons 125 allowed | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Testamentary Capacity
- Outcome: The court found that the testator possessed testamentary capacity at the time of making the will.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 4 SLR 373
- Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found that the will was not made under undue influence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 4 SLR 93
8. Remedies Sought
- Revocation of Grant of Probate
- Declaration that the estate be distributed in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Wills and Estates
- Estate Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 elements required for a valid will: mental capacity, knowledge and approval of contents, and freedom from undue influence. |
| ULV v ULW | High Court | No | [2019] 3 SLR 1270 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that the element of a testator’s knowledge and approval of the contents of the will has been considered as a distinct issue from the element of the testator’s testamentary capacity and both elements have to be separately pleaded. |
| Panachand & Co (Pte) Ltd v Riko International Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985-1986] SLR(R) 311 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and the court cannot decide on issues not raised in the pleadings. |
| SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 118 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that the underlying consideration of the law of pleadings is to prevent surprises arising at trial. |
| George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 631 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in cases where expert witnesses disagree, the court may place greater weight on factual witnesses. |
| Yeo Henry (executor and trustee of the estate of Ng Lay Hua, deceased) v Yeo Charles and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 220 | Singapore | Cited for cautioning against placing too much reliance on the evidence of medical experts who did not have the opportunity of seeing the deceased. |
| Browne v Dunn | House of Lords | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | United Kingdom | Cited for the rule that an individual should be confronted with any contradictory evidence that is being relied upon by the cross-examiner. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Lye Heng | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 564 | Singapore | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn. |
| Ng Bee Keong v Ng Choon Huay and others | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 107 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a testator will only be deprived of testamentary capacity if the testator’s mind was so dominated by the insane delusion that he is unable to exercise judgment in disposing of his property reasonably and properly. |
| Banks v Goodfellow | Court of Queen's Bench | Yes | (1870) LR 5 QB 549 | United Kingdom | Cited for the essential requisites of testamentary capacity. |
| UAM v UAN and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1086 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden will prima facie be established by the due execution of the will in ordinary circumstances where the testator was not known to be suffering from any kind of mental disability. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee Chen and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 249 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where expert medical evidence was provided by psychiatrists, if the psychiatric report does not show that the offender is suffering from a clearly diagnosed and recognised psychiatric disorder, the court would be justified in rejecting the evidence of the offender’s purported mental condition. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 824 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where expert medical evidence was provided by psychiatrists, if the psychiatric report does not show that the offender is suffering from a clearly diagnosed and recognised psychiatric disorder, the court would be justified in rejecting the evidence of the offender’s purported mental condition. |
| Rajaratnam Kumar (alias Rajaratnam Vairamuthu) v Estate of Rajaratnam Saravana Muthu (deceased) and another and another Suit | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 93 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that undue influence cannot be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party alleging the undue influence. |
| Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that undue influence cannot be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party alleging the undue influence. |
| Lai Hoon Woon (executor and trustee of the estate of Lai Thai Lok, deceased) v Lai Foong Sin and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the persuasion must have been of such intensity as to overpower the volition of the testator without actually convincing him. |
| Saeng-Un Udom v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the duties of a court in dealing with expert opinion are restricted to electing or choosing between conflicting expert evidence or accepting or rejecting the proffered expert evidence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 398 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) |
| Rule 12(3) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Testamentary capacity
- Undue influence
- Bipolar disorder
- Grant of Probate
- Intestate Succession Act
- Euthymic
- Delusion
- Overvalued idea
- Remission
15.2 Keywords
- Will
- Testamentary capacity
- Undue influence
- Bipolar disorder
- Probate
- Family
- Singapore
- Succession
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Testamentary Capacity | 98 |
| Wills and Probate | 95 |
| Succession Law | 90 |
| Undue Influence | 85 |
| Family Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Wills
- Probate
- Family Law
- Mental Capacity
- Undue Influence